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-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:05:27.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part III - Pragmatic Approaches to Context

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. 181 - 328
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

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (1999). The myth of conventional implicatures. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(4), 327–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, J., and Perry, J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beaver, D., and Zeevat, H. (2007). Accommodation. In Ramchand, G. and Reiss, C. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces (pp. 503–538). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blochowiak, J., and Castelain, T. (2018). How logical is natural language conjunction? An experimental investigation of the French conjunction et. In Saint-Germier, P. (ed.), Language, Evolution and Mind: Essays in Honour of Anne Reboul (pp. 97–125). London: College PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Blochowiak, J., and Grisot, C. (2018). The pragmatics of descriptive and metalinguistic negation: experimental data from French. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blochowiak, J., Castelain, T., Rodriguez-Villagra, O. A., and Musolino, J. (2022). If and only if people were logical! The effect of pragmatic enrichment on reasoning with abstract and realistic materials. Journal of Pragmatics, 197, 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnefon, J.-F., Feeney, A., and Villejoubert, G. (2009). When some is actually all: Scalar inference in face-threatening contexts. Cognition, 112, 249–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breheny, R., Katsos, N., and Williams, J. (2006). Are generalized conversational implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition, 100(3), 434–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, P., and Levinson, S. C. ( 1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. (2013). Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doran, R., Baker, R., McNabb, Y., Larson, M., and Ward, G. (2009). On the non-unified nature of scalar implicature: An empirical investigation. International Review of Pragmatics, 1, 211–248.Google Scholar
Fox, D. (2007). Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Sauerland, U. and Stateva, P. (eds.), Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics (pp. 71–120). Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frege, G. [1892] (1948). Sense and reference. The Philosophical Review, 57(3): 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicatures, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gotzner, N., Solt, S., and Benz, A. (2018). Scalar diversity, negative strengthening, and adjectival semantics. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1659. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01659.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Meaning. In Studies in the Way of Words. (pp. 213–223). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (GURT’84) (pp. 11–42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language, 61(1), 121–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (2004). Implicature. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. 1989. Demonstratives. In Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H. (eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. and Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicatures. In Oh, C.-K. and Dinneen, D. A. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. XI: Presuppositions (pp. 1–56). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Korta, K., and Perry, J. (2012). Critical Pragmatics: An Inquiry into Reference and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1991). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: A Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzarella, D. (2015). Politeness, relevance and scalar inferences. Journal of Pragmatics, 79, 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2018). A set of semantic and pragmatic criteria for descriptive vs. metalinguistic negation. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 58. 1–30. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2019). Non-Lexical Pragmatics: Time, Causality and Logical Words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2021). Why Language? What Pragmatics Tells Us about Language and Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noh, E. J., Choo, H., and Koh, S. (2013). Processing metalinguistic negation: Evidence from eye-tracking experiments. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Investigations of scalar implicatures. Cognition, 78(2), 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I. (2018). Experimental Pragmatics: The Making of a Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I., and Sperber, D., eds. (2004). Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I., and Reboul, A. (2008). Experimental pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 425–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I., Chevallier, C., Chevaux, F., Musolino, J., and Bott, L. (2009). Children enrichment of conjunctive sentences in context. In P. De Brabanter M. and M. Kissine (eds.), Current Research in the Semantics/ Pragmatics Interface (pp. 211–234) Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A., and Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics/pragmatics interface. Cognition, 86, 253–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potts, C. (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reboul, A. (2019). Particularized Conversational Implicatures: Why there are Conversational Implicatures. In Zufferey, S., Moeschler, J., and Reboul, A., Implicatures (pp. 67–87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Recanati, F. (1994). Contextualism and anti-contextualism in the philosophy of language. In Tsohatzidis, S. L. (ed.), Foundations of Speech Act Theory (pp. 156–166). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. (1978). On testing for conversational implicature. In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. IX: Pragmatics (pp. 281–297). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1977). Pragmatic Presuppositions. In Rogers, A., Wall, B., and Murphy, J. P. (eds.), Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions and Implicatures (pp. 135–147). Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. IX: Pragmatics (pp. 315–332). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. (1950). On referring. Mind, 59(235), 320–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, M., Weissman, B., and Roy, J. (2020). Different scalar terms affected by face differently. International Review of Pragmatics, 12, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Tiel, B., Pankratz, E., and Sun, C. (2019). Scales and scalarity: Processing scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 105, 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., and Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhan, L. (2018). Scalar and ignorance inferences are both computed immediately upon encountering the sentential connective: The online processing of sentences with disjunction using the visual world paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 61. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zufferey, S., Moeschler, J., and Reboul, A. (2019). Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Antonopoulou, E., and Nikiforidou, K. (2011). Construction grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10), 2594–2609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonopoulou, E., Nikiforidou, K., and Tsakona, V. (2015). Construction grammar and discoursal incongruity. In Brône, G., Feyaerts, K. and Veale, T., eds., Cognitive Linguistics Meets Humor Research: Current trends and new developments. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 289–314.Google Scholar
Archer, D. (2017). Context and historical (socio-)pragmatics 20 years on. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 18(2), 315–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, D., and Culpeper, J. (2009). Identifying key sociophilological usage in plays and trial proceedings (1640–1760): An empirical approach via corpus annotation. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 10(2), 286–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Chang, Y.-F. (2011). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The relation between pragmalinguistic competence and sociopragmatic competence. Language Sciences, 33(5), 786–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, W.-L. M., and Haugh, M. (2017). Intercultural communicative competence and emotion among second language learners of Chinese. In Kecskes, I. and Sun, C. (eds.), Key Issues in Chinese as a Second Language Research (pp. 267–286). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Citron, F., and Goldberg, A. (2014). Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(11), 2585–2595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corbett, J. (2006). Genre and genre analysis. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 26–32). Boston: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Devlin, A. M. (2019). The interaction between duration of study abroad, diversity of loci of learning and sociopragmatic variation patterns: A comparative study. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G. (2015) Modal particles in different communicative types. Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 218–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2011). Pragmatics as a linguistic concept. In Bublitz, W. and Norrick, N. R. (eds.), Foundations of Pragmatics (pp. 23–50). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch., Kay, P., and O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (2015). Situation in grammar or in frames? Evidence from the so-called baby talk register. Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 258–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, S. M. (2009). The sociopragmatics of a lovers’ spat: The case of the eighteenth-century courtship letters of Mary Pierrepont and Edward Wortley. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 10(2), 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M., and Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Fried, Μ and Östman, J.-O. (eds.), Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective (pp. 11–86). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. IX: Pragmatics (pp. 113–128). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
Herring, S. C., Stein, D., and Virtanen, T. (2013). Introduction to the pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. In Herring, S. C., Stein, D., and Virtanen, T. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication (pp. 3–31). Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (2019). Relevance and metaphor understanding in a second language. In Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R. (eds.), Relevance: Pragmatics and Interpretation (pp. 218–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Jacobs, A., and Jucker, A. H. (1995). The historical perspective in pragmatics. In Jucker, A. H. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English (pp. 3–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (2006). Historical pragmatics. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics 2006 (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kasper, G., and Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2012). Sociopragmatics and cross-cultural and intercultural studies. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 599–616). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind (pp. 462–585). Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. N. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. N. (1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Talk at Work (pp. 66–100). The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar
Marmaridou, S. (2000). Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmaridou, S. (2011). Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. In Bublitz, W., and Norrick, N. R. (eds.), Foundations of Pragmatics (pp. 77–106). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar
Marmaridou, S. (forthcoming). Re-cycling discourse constructions: The case of [apo NPAcc. (ine3rd p. sing.) ne/oçi] in Greek TV shows.Google Scholar
McNamara, T., and Roever, C. (2006). The social dimension of proficiency: How testable is it? Language Learning, 56(2): 43–79.Google Scholar
Morris, Ch. W. (1938). Foundations of the Theory of Signs. In Carnap, N. O. R. and Morris, C. W. (eds.), International Encyclopaedia of Unified Science (Vol. I, pp. 77–138). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Moser, A., and Panaretou, E. (2011). Why a mother’s rule is not a law: The role of context in the interpretation of Greek laws. In Fetzer, A. and Oishi, E. (eds.), Context and Contexts (pp. 11–40). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2016). “Genre knowledge” in a constructional framework: Lexis, grammar and perspective in folk tales. In Stukker, N., Spooren, W., and Steen, G. (eds.), Genre in Language, Discourse and Cognition (pp. 331–360). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2018). Genre and constructional analysis. Pragmatics and Cognition, 25(3), 543–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2021). Grammatical variability and the grammar of genre: Constructions, conventionality, and motivation in “stage directions.” Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics (eds. Matsumoto, Y. and Iwasaki, S.), Multiplicity in Grammar: Modes, Genres and Speaker’s Knowledge, 173, 189–199.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In Östman, J.-O. and Fried, M. (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions (pp. 121–144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piata, A. (2016). Genre “out of the box”: A conceptual integration analysis of poetic discourse. In Stukker, N., Spooren, W., and Steen, G. (eds.), Genre in Language, Discourse and Cognition (pp. 225–250). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (2007). Adaptive Management in discourse: The case of involvement discourse markers in English and Spanish conversations. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 6(1), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J., and Maguire, L. (2011). Adaptive context: The fourth element of meaning. International Review of Pragmatics, 3(2), 228–241.Google Scholar
Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22(1), 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., and Michaelis, L. (2010). A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 158–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P., P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
Stukker, N., Spooren, W., and Steen, G. (2016). Introduction. In Stukker, N., Spooren, W., and Steen, G. (eds.), Genre in Language, Discourse and Cognition (pp. 1–14). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2009). On de-limiting context. In Bergs, A. and Diewald, G. (eds.), Contexts and Constructions (pp. 17–42). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2021). Inference and Implicature. In Haugh, M, Kadar, D. Z., and Terkourafi, M (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics (pp. 30–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. A. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (2021). Reflexivity and meta-awareness. In Haugh, M., Kadar, D. Z., and Terkourafi, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics (pp. 117–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Apresjan, Ju. (1992). Lexical Semantics: User’s Guide to Contemporary Russian Vocabulary. [Translation of Ju. Apresjan 1974. Leksičeskaja semantika: sinonimičeskie sredstva jazyka. (In Russ.)] Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
Besemeres, M., and Wierzbicka, A., eds. (2007). Translating Lives: Living with Two Languages and Cultures. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
Bhattacharyya, S. (2011). Growth Miracles and Growth Debacles: Exploring Root Causes. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharyya, S. (2020). A History of Global Capitalism: Feuding Elites and Imperial Expansion. Cham: Springer Nature.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boym, S. (1994). Common Places: Mythologies of Everyday Life in Russia. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromhead, H. (2018). Landscape and Culture: Cross-linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, D. (2012–2020). Learn These Words First: Multi-layer Dictionary for Second- Language Learners of English. https://learnthesewordsfirst.com.Google Scholar
Farrelly, N., and Wesley, M. (2018). Internationalizing Minimal English: Perils and parallels. In Goddard, C. (ed.), Minimal English for a Global World: Improved Communication Using Fewer Words, 95–112. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Selected essays by Clifford Geertz. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Gladkova, A. (2013a). “Is he one of ours?” The cultural semantics and ethnopragmatics of social categories in Russian. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 180–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gladkova, A. (2013b). “Intimate” talk in Russian: Human relationships and folk psychotherapy. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 33, 322–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gladkova, A. (2017). Communication modes, Russian. In Kim, Young Yun, (ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gladkova, A., and Larina, T. (2018). Anna Wierzbicka, Words and the World. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 22(3), 499–520. doi: 10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-3-499-520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gladkova, A. and Romero-Trillo, J. (2014). Ain’t it beautiful? The conceptualization of beauty from an ethnopragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 140–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Cliff. (2000). Polysemy: A problem of definition. In Ravin, Y. and Leacock, C. (eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches (pp. 129–151). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2006). Ethnopragmatics. A new paradigm. In C. Goddard, (ed.), Ethnopragmatics: Understanding Discourse in Cultural Context (pp. 1–30). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C. (2011). Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2015). Verb classes and valency alternations (NSM approach), with special reference to English physical activity verbs. In Malchukov, A. and Comrie, B. (eds.), Valency Classes in the World’s Languages (pp. 1649–1680). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2016). Semantic molecules and their role in NSM lexical definitions. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 2(109), 13–34.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2018a). Ten Lectures on Natural Semantic Metalanguage: Exploring Language, Thought and Culture Using Simple, Translatable Words. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C. (2018b). Minimal English for a Global World: Improved Communication Using Fewer Words. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C. (2020). Natural Semantic Metalanguage. In Xu, W. and Taylor, J. R. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 93–110). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2021). Minimal Languages in Action. Cham: Springer Nature.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C., and Wierzbicka, , A., eds. (1994). Semantic and Lexical Universals: Theory and Empirical Findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C., and Wierzbicka, A., eds. (2002). Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings, Vols. I, II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goddard, C., and Wierzbicka, A. (2004). Cultural scripts: What are they and what are they good for? Intercultural Pragmatics, 1–2, 153–166.Google Scholar
Goddard, C., and Wierzbicka, A. (2014). Words and Meanings: Lexical Semantics Across Domains, Languages, and Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, C., and Wierzbicka, A. (2021). Semantics in the time of coronavirus: “Virus,” “bacteria,” “germs,” “disease” and related concepts. Russian Journal of Linguistics 25(1). 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howes, D. (2005). Hyperesthesia, or, the sensual logic of late capitalism. In Howes, D. (ed.), Empire of the Senses: The Sensual Culture Reader (pp. 281–303). Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Iordanskaja, L. (1979). The semantics of three Russian verbs of perception: Vosprinimat’ “(to) perceive,” oščuščat’ “(to) sense” and čusvstvovat’ “(to) feel.” Linguistics, 17, 825–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, P. (2017). How to Start, Carry on and End Conversations: Scripts for Social Situations for People on the Autism Spectrum. London: Jessika Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
Landes, D. (1999). The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor? London: Abacus.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. (1956). Preface to an edition of Nizolius. In Philosophical Papers and Letters: A Selection, trans. and ed., with intro. by Loemker, L. E. (Vol. I, pp. 186–202). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. [1678] (1987). The analysis of languages. In Dascal, M., Leibniz, Language, Signs and Thought: A Collection of Essays (pp. 161–165). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Levisen, C. (2012). Cultural Semantics and Social Cognition: A Case Study on the Danish Universe of Meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levisen, C. (2017). Communication modes, Danish. In Kim, Young Yun (gen. ed.), McKay-Semmler, K. L. (associate ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Levisen, C., and Waters, S., eds. (2018). Cultural Keywords in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Maley, W. (2018). Minimal English and diplomacy. In Goddard, C. (ed.), Minimal English for a Global World: Improved Communication Using Fewer Words (pp. 71–93). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marini, M. G. (2019). Languages of Care in Narrative Medicine: Words, Space and Time in the Healthcare Ecosystem. Cham: Springer Nature.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. (2016). Language: From Meaning to Text. Moscow/Boston: Academic Studies Press.Google Scholar
The Natural Semantic Metalanguage Homepage. https://intranet.secure.griffith.edu.au/schools-departments/natural-semantic-metalanguage.Google Scholar
Peeters, B., ed. (2006). Semantic Primes and Universal Grammar: Empirical Evidence from the Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesmen, D. (2000). Russia and Soul: An Exploration. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadow, L. (2019). An NSM-based cultural dictionary of Australian English: From theory to practice. Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Stearns, P. (2006). Consumerism in the World History: The Global Transformation of Desire, 2nd ed. New York/London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1972). Semantic Primitives. (Trans. A. Wierzbicka and J. Besemeres.) Frankfurt: Athenäum Verlag.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Understanding Cultures through Their Key Words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2002). Russian cultural scripts: The theory of cultural scripts and its applications. Ethos, 30(4): 401–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2003/1991). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics, 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2006). English: Meaning and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2014). Imprisoned in English: The Hazards of English as a Default Language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2015). Natural Semantic Metalanguage. In Tracy, Karen (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2017). W co wierzą chrześcijanie? Opowieść o Bogu i o ludziach (What Christians Believe: The Story of God and People). Cracow: Znak.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2019). What Christians Believe: The Story of God and People in Minimal English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2021a). “Semantic primitives,” fifty years later. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 25(2), 317–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2021b). Vo čto verjat xristiane: Istorija Boga i ljudej. [What Christians Believe: The Story of God and People.] Moscow: Languages of Slavonic Cultures. (Trans. from English into Russian by Anna Gladkova.)Google Scholar

References

Allan, K., and Jaszczolt, K., eds. (2012). The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allott, N. (2018). Conversational implicature. In Aronoff, M. (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.205.Google Scholar
Allott, N, (2019). Scientific tractability and relevance theory. In Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R. (eds.), Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation (pp. 29–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allott, N., and Wilson, D. (2021). Chomsky and pragmatics. In Allott, N., Lohndal, T., and Rey, G. (eds.), A Companion to Chomsky (pp. 433–447). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley–Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. (2002). The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 361–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assimakopoulos, S. (2017). Context selection in relevance theory. In Blochowiak, J., Grisot, C., Durrleman, S., and Laenzlinger, C. (eds.), Formal Models in the Study of Language: Applications in Interdisciplinary Contexts (pp. 221–242). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. (2000). Logic, Meaning, and Conversation: Semantical Underdeterminacy, Implicature, and Their Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, A. (2016). What properly belongs to grammar: A response to Lepore and Stone. Inquiry, 59, 175–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelen, H., and Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (1995). Quantity maxims and scalar implicature. Lingua, 96, 213–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (1998). Informativeness, relevance, and scalar implicature. In Carston, R. and Uchida, S. (eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications (pp. 179–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2012). Metaphor and the literal–non-literal distinction. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 469–492). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2016). Linguistic conventions and the role of pragmatics. Mind and Language, 31, 612–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R., and Hall, A. (2012). Implicature and explicature. In Schmid, H. J. (ed.), Cognitive Pragmatics (pp. 47–84). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond (pp. 39–103). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1992). Language and interpretation: Philosophical reflections and empirical enquiry. In Earman, J. (ed.), Inference, Explanation and Other Frustrations: Essays in the Philosophy of Science (pp. 99–128). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Google Scholar
Clark, B. (2013). Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H, (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H., and Marshall, A. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshi, A., Webber, B., and Sag, I. (eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Csibra, G. (2010). Recognizing communicative intentions in infancy. Mind and Language, 25, 141–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csibra, G., and Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 148–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dupuy, L., Van der Henst, J.-B., Cheylus, A., and Reboul, A. (2016). Context in generalized conversational implicatures: The case of some. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(381), March 22. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eilan, N., Hoerl, C., McCormack, T., and Roessler, J., eds. (2005). Joint Attention: Communication and Other Minds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, K. (2008). What is presupposition accommodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives, 22: 137–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (1983). Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Carpintero, M. (2016). Accommodating presuppositions. Topoi, 35, 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. (2017). Experimental pragmatics. In Huang, Y. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 310–325). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geurts, B. (2010). Quantity Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 66: 377–388. Repr. in Grice (1989), pp. 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1967). Logic and conversation. William James Lectures, Harvard University. Repr. in Grice (1989), pp. 1–143.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1969). Utterer’s meaning and intentions, Philosophical Review, 78, 147–177. Repr. in Grice (1989), pp. 86–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, D. (2017). Review of Imagination and Convention: Distinguishing Grammar and Inference in Language by E. Lepore and M. Stone. Philosophical Review, 26, 554–558.Google Scholar
Heintz, C., and Scott-Phillips, T. (2022). Expression unleashed: The evolutionary and cognitive foundations of human communication. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Jan. 5. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X22000012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschberg, J. (1991). A Theory of Scalar Implicature. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (pp. 11–42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (2004). Implicature. In Horn, L. and Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Horn, L. and Ward, G., eds. (2004). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lepore, E., and Stone, M. (2010). Against metaphorical meaning. Topoi, 29, 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepore, E., and Stone, M. (2015). Imagination and Convention: Distinguishing Grammar and Inference in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8: 339–359. Repr. in Lewis (1983), pp. 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1983). Philosophical Papers. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lycan, W. (1995). Philosophy of language. In Audi, R. (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (pp. 586–589). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mazzone, M. (2015). Constructing the context through goals and schemata: Top-down processes in comprehension and beyond. Frontiers in Psychology, May 19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, J. (2012). What is a context? Theoretical and empirical evidence. In Finkbeiner, R., Meibauer, J., and Schumacher, P. (eds.), What Is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges (pp. 9–32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. (2018). Experimental Pragmatics: The Making of a Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Noveck, I., and Sperber, D. (2007). The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of “scalar inferences.” In Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 184–212). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (2015). Accommodation in a language game. In Loewer, B. and Schaffer, J. (eds.), A Companion to David Lewis (pp. 345–366). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schulze, C., and Tomasello, M. (2015). 18-month-olds comprehend indirect communicative acts. Cognition, 136, 91–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, K., Clark, B. and Carston, R., eds. (2019). Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (1978). Literal meaning. Erkenntnis, 13, 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, N. V. (1982). Mutual Knowledge. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Southgate, V., Chevallier, C., and Csibra, G. (2009). Sensitivity to communicative relevance tells young children what to imitate. Developmental Science, 12, 1013–1019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sperber, D. (2005). Modularity and relevance: How can a massively modular mind be flexible and context-sensitive? In Carruthers, P., Lawrence, S., and Stich, S. (eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Content (pp. 53–68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. (2018). Rethinking ostension, (1) and (2). Dan Sperber’s blog, cognitionand culture.net.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (2021). Rethinking common ground. Conference presentation, MK40: Common knowledge, common ground and context in communication. University College London.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1987). Précis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 697–751.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1990). Spontaneous deduction and mutual knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1995). Postface to Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995), Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. .Google Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mindreading. Mind and Language, 17, 3–26. Repr. in Wilson and Sperber (2012), pp. 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (2005). Pragmatics. In Jackson, F. and Smith, M. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy (pp. 468–501). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Repr. in Wilson and Sperber (2012), pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphors. In Gibbs, R. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 84–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (2015). Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 15, 117–149.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1999). Context and Content: Essays on Intentionality in Speech and Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R, (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stojnić, U. (2021). Context and Coherence: The Logic and Grammar of Prominence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Henst, J.-B., and Sperber, D. (2004). Testing the cognitive and communicative principles of relevance. In Noveck, I. and Sperber, D. (eds.), Experimental Pragmatics (pp. 141–171). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Repr. in Wilson and Sperber (2012), pp. 279–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Henst, J.-B., Sperber, D., and Politzer, G. (2002). When is a conclusion worth deriving? A relevance-based analysis of determinate relational problems. Thinking and Reasoning, 8, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, T., Jagoe, C., and Wilson, D., eds. (2022). Special issue, Relevance Theory: New Horizons. Journal of Pragmatics, 124.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2017). Relevance theory. In Huang, Y. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 79–100). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2019). Relevance theory. In Aronoff, M. (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.201.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2022). Communication, comprehension, and interpretation. In Colston, H., Matlock, T., and Steen, G. (eds.), Dynamism in Metaphor and Beyond (pp. 143–155). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., and Carston, R. (2019). Pragmatics and the challenge of “non-propositional” effects. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., and Sperber, D. (2002). Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111, 583–632. Repr. in Wilson and Sperber (2012), pp. 47–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., and Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In Horn, L. and Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S., Moeschler, J., and Reboul, A. (2019). Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Baker, W. (2009). The cultures of English as a Lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), 567–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, W. (2015). Culture and Identity through English as a Lingua Franca. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldinger, K. (1980). Semantic Theory: Towards a Modern Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. (1981). Basic issues in the development of word meaning. In Deutch, W. (ed.), The Child’s Construction of Language (pp. 341–387). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M., and Schreuder, R. (1992). From concepts to lexical items. Cognition, 42, 23–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brumfit, C. (2006). A European perspective on language as liminality. In Mar-Molinero, C. and Stevenson, P. (eds.), Language Ideologies, Policies and Practices. Language and Globalization (pp. 28–43). Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230523883_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W., and Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., and Wood, E. J. (2000). Construal operations in linguistics and artificial intelligence. In Albertazzi, L. (ed.), Meaning and Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Approach (pp. 51–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (1992). Antonymy revisited: Some thoughts on the relationship between words and concepts. In Frames, Fields, and Contrasts (pp. 289–306). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (2002). Language, meaning and sense: semantics. In Collinge, N. (ed.), An Encyclopedia of Language (pp. 87–104). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
D’Andrade, R. (1987). A folk model of the mind. In Holland, D. and Quinn, N. (eds.), Cultural Models in Language and Thought (pp. 113–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
D’Andrade, R. (1992). Schemas and motivation. In D’Andrade, R. and Strauss, C. (eds.), Human Motives and Cultural Models (pp. 23–44). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. (2006). Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 491–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic Prototype Semantics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. (1996). Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition, 61, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goddard, C. (1998). Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, J. S. (1985). Lexical, conceptual, and encyclopedic meaning. Quaderni de Semanlica, 2, 254–267.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (2001). Contextualization and ideology in intercultural communication. In Luzio, A. D., Gunthner, S., and Orletti, F. (eds.), Culture in Communication: Analysis of Intercultural Situations (pp. 35–54). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J., and Levinson, S., eds. (1996). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1980). Dictionaries and encyclopedias. Lingua, 50, 329–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harnad, S. (1990). The Symbol Grounding Problem. Physica D, 42, 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., and Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569–1579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
He, Sui. 2021. Cognitive metaphor theories in translation studies: Toward a dual-model parametric approach. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(1), 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, D., and Quinn, N., eds. (1987). Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, J. (2014). Managing Academic Institutional Discourse in English as a Lingua Franca. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkinson, Christopher. (2021). Realizations of oppositional speech acts in English: A contrastive analysis of discourse in L1 and L2 settings. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(2): 163–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2003). Situation-Bound Utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2013). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019a). English as a Lingua Franca: The Pragmatic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019b). Impoverished pragmatics? The semantics–pragmatics interface from an intercultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(5): 489–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. 2021. Processing implicatures in English as a Lingua Franca communication. Lingua, 256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, F. (1990). Linguistic, conceptual and encyclopedic knowledge: Some implications for lexicography. In Magay, T. and Zigány, J. (eds.), BudaLEX ’88 Proceedings: Papers from the 3rd International EURALEX Congress. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1988). An overview of cognitive grammar. Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, Vol. III. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
LaPolla, R. J. (2010). Arguments against “Subject” and “Direct Object” as Viable Concepts in Chinese. Frankfurt: Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. (1903). Opuscules et fragments inédits de Leibniz: Extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale de Hanovre, ed. Couturat, Louis, Paris: Félix Alcan.Google Scholar
Meierkord, C. (2002). “Language stripped bare” or “linguistic masala”? Culture in lingua franca communication. In Knapp, K. and Meierkord, C. (eds.), Lingua Franca Communication (pp. 109–134). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, I., and Zholkovsky, A. (1984). Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary of Modern Russian. Vienna: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In Winston, P. H. (ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision (pp. 211–277). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2003). Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language, 79, 682–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paolucci, Claudio. 2021. The distinction between semantics and pragmatics: The point of view of semiotics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(3): 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S., and Jackendoff, R. (2005). The faculty of language: What’s so special about it? Cognition, 95, 201–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Risager, K. (2006). Language and Culture: Global Flows and Local Complexity. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. In Warren, N. (ed.), Advances in Cross-cultural Psychology (Vol. I, pp. 1–49). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., and Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Enquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. (1991). Learning to think for speaking: Native language, cognition, and rhetorical style. Pragmatics, 1(1), 7–25.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1997). Mind, code, and text. In Bybee, J., Haiman, J., and Thompson, S. A. (eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givón (pp. 437–467). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. (2000). The network model and the two-level model in comparison. In Peeters, B. (ed.), The Lexicon–Encyclopedia Interface (pp. 115–143). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Olmen, D., and Tantucci, , V. (2022). Getting attention in different languages: A usage-based approach to parenthetical look in Chinese, Dutch, English, and Italian. Intercultural Pragmatics, 19(2): 141–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werkmann, H., Kohl, Marianna Bolognesi, K. (2021). The status of conventional metaphorical meaning in the L2 lexicon. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 447–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whorf, B. L. (1939). The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In Carroll, J. (ed.), Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2002). English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K., ed. (2009). Special issue on contrastive pragmatics. Languages in Contrast, 9(1), 1–181.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2011). Well, I’m not sure I think … The use of well by non-native speakers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(2), 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2021). “That’s well good”: A re-emergent intensifier in current British English. Journal of English Linguistics, 49(1), 18–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2022). “Well he’s sick anyway like”: Anyway in Irish English. Corpus Pragmatics: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, 6(2), 101–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K., and Lewis, D., eds. (2017). Contrastive Analysis of Discourse-Pragmatic Aspects of Linguistic Genres. Cham: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K., and Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (2006). Pragmatic Markers in Contrast. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K., and Rühlemann, C. (2015). Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Andersen, G. (2001). Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, G. (2018). Corpus construction. In Jucker, A. H., Schneider, K., and Bublitz, W. (eds.), Methods in Pragmatics (pp. 467–494). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, D., Culpeper, J., and Davies, M. (2008). Pragmatic annotation. In Kytö, M. and Lüdeling, A. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook (pp. 613–642). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
Archer, D. and Culpeper, J. (2018). Corpus annotation. In Jucker, A. H., Schneider, K., and Bublitz, W. (eds.), Methods in Pragmatics (pp. 495–525). Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. (2012). Research paradigms in pragmatics. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, J. M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 23–45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Barron, A. (2017a). The speech act of “offers” in Irish English. World Englishes, 36(2), 224–238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barron, A. (2017b). Variational pragmatics. In Barron, A., Yueuo, G., and Steen, G. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 91–104). London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beeching, K. (2016). Pragmatic Markers in British English: Meaning in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beeching, K., and Detges, U. (2014). Introduction. In Beeching, K. and Detges, U. (eds.), Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change (pp. 1–23). Brill: Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman. Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (2008). The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origin and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (2017). The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English: Pathways of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., and Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N. (ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (pp. 56–311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Butler, C. S. (2008). The subjectivity of basically in British English: A corpus-based study. In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics: A Mutualistic Entente (pp. 37–63). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buysse, L. (2017). The pragmatic marker “you know” in learner Englishes. Journal of Pragmatics, 121, 40–57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, J. (2007). Discourse variation, grammaticalization and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11, 155–193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, J., Kerswill, P., Fox, S., and Torgersen, E. (2011). Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: The emergence of Multicultural London English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(2), 151–196. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, B. (2011). Complementary perspectives on hedging behaviour in family discourse: The analytical synergy of variational pragmatics and corpus linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(3), 371–390. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, B. (2015). “Hurry up baby son all the boys is finished their breakfast”: Examining the use of vocatives as pragmatic markers in Traveller, Irish and settled family discourse. In Amador-Moreno, C., McCafferty, K., and Vaughan, E. (eds.), Pragmatic Markers in Irish English (pp. 229–247). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, B., and McCarthy, M. (2015). Co-constructed turn-taking. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C. (eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 430–453). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2001). Meaning in interaction. Language, 77, 246–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J., and Gillings, M. (2018). Politeness variation in England: A north–south divide? In Brezina, V., Love, R., and Aijmer, K. (eds.), Corpus Approaches to Contemporary British Speech: Sociolinguistic Studies of the Spoken BNC2014 (pp. 33–59). New York/London: Routledge. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, A. (2017). Discourse-Pragmatic Variation in Context: Eight Hundred Years of LIKE. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. 2009. The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–present). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2): 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2010). The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/.Google Scholar
Degand, L., and Fagard, B. (2011). Alors between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language, 18(1), 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denis, D., and Tagliamonte, S. A. (2016). Innovation, right? Change, you know? Utterance-final tags in English, Canadian. In H. Pichler, (ed.), Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change in English: New Methods and Insights (pp. 86–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutschmann, M. (2003). Apologising in British English. Institutionen för moderna språk. Umeå: Umeå universitet.Google Scholar
Diani, G. (2015). Politeness. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C. (eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 169–191). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., and Hasler-Barker, M. (2017). Elicited data. In Barron, A., G. Yueuo, and G. Steen (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 27–40). London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia McAllister, P. (2015). Speech acts: A synchronic perspective. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C. (eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 29–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., and Colston, H. L. (2020). Pragmatics always matters: An expanded vision of experimental pragmatics. Front. Psychol., July 24. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, S., and Hunston, S. (2016). Corpora and beyond: Investigating evaluation in discourse. Introduction to the special issue on corpus approaches to evaluation Corpora, 11(2), 131–141.Google Scholar
Gray, D., and Biber, D. (2015). Stance markers. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C. (eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 219–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morton, J. M. (eds.), Syntax and emantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1996). The linguistic and cultural relativity of inference. In Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 374–406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Huang, L. (2021). Toward multi-modal corpus pragmatics: Rationale, case, and agenda. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 36(1). DOI:10.1093/llc/fqz080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulleberg Johansen, S. (2020). “I just need to like see what I can do”: A contrastive study of hedging strategies in English and Norwegian informal spoken conversations. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Jautz, S. (2013). Thanking Formulae in English: Explorations across Varieties and Genres. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H., and Taavitsainen, I. (2000). Diachronic speech act analysis: Insults from flyting to flaming. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 1(1), 67–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H., and Taavitsainen, I. (2014). Diachronic corpus pragmatics: Intersections and interactions. In Jucker, A. H., Taavitsainen, I., and Tuominen, J. (eds.), Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics (pp. 3–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (2018). Introduction to part 5: Corpus pragmatics. In Jucker, A. H., Schneider, K., and Bublitz, W. (eds.), Methods in Pragmatics (pp. 455–466). Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallen, J. L. (2015). “Actually, it’s unfair to say that I was throwing stones”: Comparative perspectives on uses of actually in ICE-Ireland. In Amador-Moreno, C., McCafferty, K., and Vaughan, E. (eds.), Pragmatic Markers in Irish English (pp. 135–155). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallen, J. L., and Kirk, J. (2012). SPICE-Ireland: A User’s Guide. Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona.Google Scholar
Knight, D., and Adolphs, S. (2008). Multi-modal corpus pragmatics: The case of active listenership. In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics: A Mutualistic Entente (pp. 175–190). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C., and Smith, N.. (2009). Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17, 365–379. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, L., and Yang, Y. (2018). Pragmatic functions of emoji in internet-based communication: A corpus-based study. Asian Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-018-0057-zGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching Dialogue Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogic Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, R., Dembry., C., Hardie., A., Brezina, V., and McEnery, T. (2017). The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 319–344. Google Scholar
Lutzky, U. (2012). Discourse Markers in Early Modern English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutzky, U., and Kehoe, A. (2017). “Oops, I didn’t mean to be so flippant.” A corpus pragmatic analysis of apologies in blog data. Journal of Pragmatics, 116: 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mey, J. L. (2017). Interdisciplinarity in pragmatics and linguistics. In Barron, A., Gu, Y., and Steen, G. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 4–18). London/New York: Routledge. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, S. (2005). Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrick, N. N. (2009). Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 866–891. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrick, N. N. (2015). Interjections. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C. (eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 249–275). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 407–437). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, A. (2018). Corpus-based function-to-form approaches. In Jucker, A. H., Schneider, K., and Bublitz, W. (eds.), Methods in Pragmatics (pp. 587–618). Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palacios-Martínez, I. (2018). ‘Help me move that, blood’ A corpus-based study of the syntax and pragmatics of vocatives in the language of British teenagers. Journal of Pragmatics, 130, 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pichler, H. (2016). Introduction: Discourse-pragmatic variation and change. In H. Pichler, (ed.), Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change in English: New Methods and Insights (pp. 1–18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pöldvere, N., Paradis, C., and Johansson, V. (2017). The London-Lund Corpus 2: A New Corpus of Spoken British English in the Making (LLC 2). Lund University. https://portal.research.lu.se/en/publications/the-london-lund-corpus-2-a-new-corpus-of-spoken-british-english-i.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J., ed. (2008). Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics: A Mutualistic Entente. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (2018). Corpus pragmatics and second language pragmatics: A mutualistic entente in theory and practice. Corpus Pragmatics, 2, 113–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronan, P. (2019). Silly much? Tracing the spread of a new expressive marker in recent corpora. Corpus Approaches into World Englishes and Language Contrasts (Studies in Variation, Contacts, and Change in English, Vol. 20), ed. Parviainen, H., Kaunisto, M., and Pahta, P.. Helsinki: VARIENG.Google Scholar
Rühlemann., C., and Aijmer, K. (2015). Introduction. Corpus pragmatics: Laying the foundations. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C. (eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 1–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rühlemann, C., and O’Donnell, M. B. (2012). Introducing a corpus of conversational narratives: Construction and annotation of the Narrative Corpus. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(2), 313–350.CrossRefGoogle 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
Staley, L., and Jucker, A. H. (2021). The uh-deconstructed pumpkin pie: The use of uh and um in Los Angeles restaurant server talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 172, 21–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stange, U. (2019). The social life of emotive interjections in spoken British English. Scandinavian Studies in Linguistics, 10(1), 174–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenström, A.-B. (2011). Pauses and hesitation. In Andersen, G. and Aijmer, K. (eds.), Pragmatics of Society (pp. 537–567). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svartvik, J. (1990). The London–Lund Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research. Lund: Lund University Press/Bromley: Chartwell-Brat. Google Scholar
Timmis, I. (2015). Tails. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C. (eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 304–327). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tottie, G. (2011). Uh and um as sociolinguistic markers in British English. The International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(2), 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., and Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Van Olmen, D., and Šinkūnienė, J., eds. (2021). Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold. Google Scholar
Wagner, S. E., Hesson, A., and Little, H. M. (2016). The use of referential general extenders across registers. In H. Pichler, (ed.), Discourse Pragmatic Variation and Change in English: New Methods and Insights (pp. 211–231). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, C. (2016). Practical strategies for elucidating discourse-pragmatic variation. In Pichler, H. (ed.), Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change in English: New Methods and Insights (pp. 41–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisser, M. (2015). Speech act annotation. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C. (eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 84–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Weisser, M. (2017). Corpora. In Barron, A., Yueuo, G., and Steen, G. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 41–52). London/New York: Routledge. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Bazzanella, C., and Damiano, R. (1999). The interactional handling of misunderstanding in everyday conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 817–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1958). A theory of pitch accent in English. Word, 14, 109–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1972). Accent is predictable (if you’re a mind reader). Language, 37, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1978). Intonation across languages. In Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, C. A., and Moravcsik, E. A. (eds.), Universals of Human Language, Vol. II: Phonology (pp. 471–524). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Brazil, D. (1975). Discourse Intonation 1/2. Birmingham: Birmingham University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P., and Levinson, S. C. (1978). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1974). Language and consciousness. Language, 50, 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Tomlin, R. S. (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse (pp. 21–51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., and Haviland, S. E. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R. D. Freedle, (ed.), Discourse Production and Comprehension (pp. 1–40). Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E., Eady, S. J., and Mueller, P. R. (1985). Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question–answer contexts. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 77, 2142–2156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cruttenden, A. (1997). Intonation, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz-Ferreira, M. (1987). Non-native interpretative strategies for intonational meaning. In Leather, J. A. and Leather, J. (eds.), Sound Patterns in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 103–120). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1986). Prosodic development. In Fletcher, P. J. and Garman, M. (eds.), Studies in First Language Development (pp. 174–197). New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
De Jong, K., and Zawaydeh, B. (2002). Comparing stress, lexical focus and segmental focus: patterns of variation in Arabic vowel duration. Journal of Phonetics, 30, 53–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, K. (1999). Contextualism: An explanation and defense. In Greco, J. and Sosa, E. (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology (pp. 187–206). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eady, S. J., and Cooper, W. E. (1986). Speech intonation and focus location in matched statements and questions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80, 402–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eefting, W. 1991. The effect of ‘information value’ and ‘accentuation’ on the duration of Dutch words, syllables and segments. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 89: 412–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A., and Oishi, E., eds. (2011). Context and Contexts: Parts Meet Whole? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fry, D. B. (1954). Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 27, 765–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geluykens, R. (1991). Information flow in English conversation: A new approach to the Given-New distinction. In E. Ventola, (ed.), Functional and Systemic Linguistics. Approaches and Uses (pp. 141–169). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
Giora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context and Figurative Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glandzberg, M. (2002). Context and discourse. Mind and Language, 17, 333–375.CrossRefGoogle 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
Gussenhoven, C. (1984). On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: MoutonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). A Course in Spoken English: Intonation. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., and Hasan, R. (1989). Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., and Matthiessen, M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar, 4th ed. Oxford: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haviland, S. E., and Clark, H. (1974). What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 13, 512–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heldner, M., and Strangert, E. (2001). Temporal effects of focus in Swedish. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 329–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology: Developments in Conversation Analysis. Sociolinguistics Newsletter, 1, 1–16.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2006). On my mind: Thoughts about salience, context and figurative language from a second language perspective. Second Language Research, 22, 219–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I., and Fenghui, Z. (2009). Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17, 331–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, R. (1980). The Structure of Intonational Meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, R. (1996). Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leckie-Tarry, H. (1995). Language and Context: A Functional Linguistic Theory of Register. London/New York: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, P. (1960). Some acoustic correlates of word stress in American English. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 32, 451–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, P. (1963). Some effects of semantic and grammatical context on the productions and perception of speech. Language and Speech, 6, 172–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madella, P., and Romero-Trillo, , J. (2019). Prosodic Pointing in inferential comprehension: The application of Relevance Theory to L2 listening instruction. Letronica 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.15448/1984-4301.2019.4.34157.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. [1923] (1989). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In Ogden, C. and Richards, I. (eds.), The Meaning of Meaning (pp. 451–510). New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, S. G., and Kruyt, J. G. (1987). Accents, focus distribution and the perceived distribution of given and new information: an experiment. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 82, 1512–1524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Connor, J. D., and Gordon, F. A. (1973). Intonation of Colloquial English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J., and Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonation contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Philip, R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Polack, (eds.), Intention in Communication (pp. 371–411). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Pollock, K. E., Brammer, D. M., and Hageman, C. F. (1993). An acoustic analysis of young children’s productions of word stress. Journal of Phonetics, 21, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 223–255). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ramírez-Verdugo, M. D. (2021). Intonation in L2 Discourse: Research Insights. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. (2002). Does communication rest on inference? Mind & Language, 17, 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (1993). Reading aloud and the structure of information. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 1, 133–142.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (1994). Ahm, ehm … You call it theme? A thematic approach to spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 495–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (1997). Your attention please: Pragmatic mechanisms to obtain the addressee’s attention in English and Spanish conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero Trillo, J. (2001). A mathematical model for the analysis of variation in discourse. Journal of Linguistics, 37, 527–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 769–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J., ed. (2012). Pragmatics and Prosody in English Language Teaching. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (2014). “Pragmatic punting” and prosody: Evidence from corpora. In Gómez González, M. A., Ruíz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., Gonzálvez García, F., and Downing, A. (eds.), The Functional Perspective on Language and Discourse: Applications and Implications (pp. 209–221). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (2018a). Corpus pragmatics and second language pragmatics: A mutualistic entente in theory and practice. Corpus Pragmatics, 2, 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (2018b). Prosodic modeling and position analysis of pragmatic markers in English conversation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14, 169–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (2019). Prosodic pragmatics and feedback in intercultural communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 151, 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (2023). “Life is a journey” (literally): Conflict and emotion in the narratives of migrants and refugees. Talk delivered at King’s College London, January 18, 2023.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J., and Maguire, L. (2011). Adaptive context: The fourth element of meaning. International Review of Pragmatics, 3, 228–241.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. and Newell, J. (2012). Prosody and feedback in native and non-native speakers of English. In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), Pragmatics, Prosody and English Language Teaching (pp. 117–132). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J., Ramírez-Verdugo, D., Jiménez-Vilches, R., Mestre-Mestre, E., Avila, Ledesma, Sadeghi, N. Y., and Madella, P. (2022). Teaching English Prosodic Pragmatics APP (TEPP). Available in Google Play and Apple Store.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, D., and Balog, H. L. (2002). Do children produce the melody before the words? A review of developmental intonation research. Lingua, 112, 1025–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Svartvik, J. (1990). The London–Lund Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research. Lund: Lund University Press/Bromley: Chartwell-Brat.Google Scholar
Terken, J. (1991). Fundamental frequency and perceived prominence of accented syllables. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 1768–1776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanderslice, R., and Ladefoged, P. (1972). Binary suprasegmental features and transformational word-accentuation rule. Language, 48, 819–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, G., and Birner, B. J. (2001). Discourse and information structure. In Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., and Hamilton, H. (eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 119–137). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Google Scholar
Ward, G., and Birner, B. J. (2003). Information structure. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 153–174). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2010). Cross-cultural communication and miscommunication: The role of cultural keywords. Intercultural Pragmatic, 7, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle 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
×