Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics
- Part II Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics
- Part III Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics
- Index
- References
Part I - Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 April 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics
- Part II Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics
- Part III Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics
- Index
- References
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics , pp. 13 - 246Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
References
Austin, J. L. ([1962] 1975). How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed. Edited by Urmson, J. O. and Sbisà, M., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A socio-cultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4/5), 585–614.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2010). Historical sociopragmatics. In Jucker, A. H. and Taavistainen, I., eds., Historical Pragmatics. Vol. 5 of Handbooks of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Crawshaw, R. and Harrison, J. (2008). ‘Activity types’ and ‘discourse types’: Mediating ‘advice’ in interactions between foreign language assistants and their supervisors in schools in France and England. Multilingua, 27, 297–324.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Haugh, M. (2014). Pragmatics and the English Language. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2015). The Language of Service Encounters: A Pragmatic-Discursive Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gudykunst, W. B. and Young, Y. K. (2003). Communicating with Strangers. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1989). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1998). Women’s role in language change: A place for quantification. In Warner, N., Ahlers, J., Bilmes, L., Oliver, M., Wertheim, S. and Chen, M., eds., Gender and Belief Systems: Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 1996. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group, pp. 313–30.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (2018). Sociolinguistics vs. pragmatics. In Ilie, C. and Norrick, N. R., eds., Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–32.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Schnurr, S. (2005). Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 121–49.Google Scholar
Hoye, L. F. (2006). Applying pragmatics. In Mey, J. L., ed., Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 24–7.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. ([1979] 1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1995). Three levels of meaning. In Palmer, F. R., ed., Grammar and Meaning: Essays in Honour of John Lyons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 90–115.Google Scholar
Linell, P. and Thunqvist, D. P. (2003). Moving in and out of framings: Activity contexts in talks with young unemployed people within a training project. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 409–34.Google Scholar
Marmaridou, S. (2011). Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. In Bublitz, W. and Norrick, N. R., eds., Foundations of Pragmatics. Vol. 1 of Handbooks of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77–106.Google Scholar
Mey, J. L. (1998). Pragmatics. In Mey, J. L., ed., Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 716–37.Google Scholar
Mey, J. L. (2012). Societal pragmatics. In Chapelle, C. A., ed., The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Chichester, UK: John Wiley, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Mooney, A. (2004). Co-operation, violation and making sense. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1601–23.Google Scholar
Morris, C. W. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. In Neurath, O., ed., International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Vol. 1, No. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–59.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2005a). Pragmatic correlates of frequency of use: The case for a notion of ‘minimal context’. In Marmaridou, S., Nikiforidou, K. and Antonopoulou, E., eds., Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the Twenty-first Century. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 209–33.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2005b). Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture, 1(2), 237–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. A. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. A. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1998). The politicization of ‘culture’. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 14(1), 7–15.Google Scholar
References
Allan, K. (2016). The reporting of slurs. In Capone, A., Kiefer, F. and Lo Piparo, F., eds., Indirect Reports and Pragmatics: Interdisciplinary Studies. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 211–32.Google Scholar
Ameka, F. K. and Terkourafi, M. (2019). What if … ? Imagining non-Western perspectives on pragmatic theory and practice. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 72–82.Google Scholar
Bach, K. and Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 145–60.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Danziger, E. (2011). Once more with feeling: A forbidden performance of the Great Speech of the Mopan Maya. Anthropological Quarterly, 84(1), 121–40.Google Scholar
Degen, J. and Tanenhaus, M. K. (2019). Constraint-based pragmatic processing. In Cummins, C. and Katsos, N., eds., Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 453–76.Google Scholar
Franke, M. and Degen, J. (2016). Reasoning in reference games: Individual- vs. population-level probabilistic modeling. PLoS ONE, 11(5), e0154854. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0154854CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, M. (2019). Organic meaning: An approach to communication with minimal appeal to minds. In Capone, A., Carapezza, M. and Lo Piparo, F., eds., Further Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy. Part II Theories and Applications. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 211–28.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. The Philosophical Review, 66, 377–88. Reprinted in: Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 213–23.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1969). Utterer’s meaning and intentions. The Philosophical Review, 78, 147–77. Reprinted in: Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 86–116.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58. Reprinted in: Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 22–40.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2002). The intuitive basis of implicature: Relevance Theoretic implicitness versus Gricean implying. Pragmatics, 12(2), 117–34.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Jaszczolt, K. (2012). Speaker intentions and intentionality. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–112.CrossRefGoogle 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. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 11–42.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marwick, A. and boyd, d. m. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society, 13(1), 114–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1989). Politeness and conversational universals: Observations from Japanese. Multilingua, 8, 207–21.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. and Hayes, P. J. (1969). Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Machine Intelligence, 4, 463–502.Google Scholar
McNally, L. 2017. Scalar alternatives and scalar inference involving adjectives: A comment on van Tiel, et al. 2016. In Ostrove, J., Kramer, R. and Sabbagh, J., eds., Asking the Right Questions: Essays in Honor of Sandra Chung. Santa Cruz: University of California Santa Cruz, Linguistics Research Center, pp. 17–28.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. (2010). Inferential comprehension. In Cummings, L., ed., The Pragmatics Encyclopedia. London: Routledge, pp. 220–22.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., Nowak, M. A. and Lee, J. J. (2008). The logic of indirect speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(3), 833–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robbins, J. and Rumsey, A. (2008). Introduction: Cultural and linguistic anthropology and the opacity of other minds. Anthropological Quarterly, 81(2), 407–20.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W. (1963). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. ([1986] 1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphors. In Gibbs, R., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 84–105.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1993). The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. In Tannen, D., ed., Gender and Conversational Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 165–88.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., Goldshtein, M. and Weissman, B. (2018). Individual differences in the real-time neural dynamics of language comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 68, 299–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2005). Pragmatic correlates of frequency of use: The case for a notion of ‘minimal context’. In Nikiforidou, K., Marmaridou, S. and Antonopoulou, E., eds., Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the 21st Century. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 209–33.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2014). The importance of being indirect: A new nomenclature for indirect speech. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 28(1), 45–70.Google Scholar
van Tiel, B., van Miltenburg, E., Zevakhina, N. and Geurts, B. (2016). Scalar diversity. Journal of Semantics, 33, 137–75.Google Scholar
Wharton, T. (2003). Natural pragmatics and natural codes. Mind and Language, 18 , 447–77.Google Scholar
Wharton, T. (2009). The Pragmatics of Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (1986). Inference and implicature in utterance interpretation. In Myers, T., Brown, K. and McGonigle, B., eds., Reasoning and Discourse Processes. London: Academic Press, pp. 241–63.Google Scholar
Woods, J. (2010). Inference. In Cummings, L., ed., The Pragmatics Encyclopedia. London: Routledge, pp. 218–20.Google Scholar
References
Ariel, M. (2016). Revisiting the typology of pragmatic interpretations. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(1), 1–35.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9, 119–53.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2008). Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 229–58.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2020). Communicating and Relating: Constituting Face in Everyday Interacting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boulat, K. (2015). Hearer-oriented processes of strength assignment: A pragmatic model of commitment. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 29, 19–40.Google Scholar
Boulat, K. and Maillat, D. (2017). She said you said I saw it with my own eyes: A pragmatic account of commitment. In Blochowiak, J., Grisot, C., Durrleman, S. and Laenzlinger, C., eds., Formal Models in the Study of Language. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 261–79.Google Scholar
Brandom, R. B. (1994). Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Brabanter, P. and Dendale, P. (2008). Commitment: The term and the notions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 22, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dynel, M. (2016). With or without intentions: Accountability and (un)intentional humour in film talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 95, 67–98.Google Scholar
Elder, C. (2019). Negotiating what is said in the face of miscommunication. In Stalmaszczyk, P., ed., Philosophical Insights into Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 107–26.Google Scholar
Elder, C. (2020). Trump vs. Clinton: Implicatures as public stance acts. In Berlin, L. N., ed., Positioning and Stance in Political Discourse. Wilmington, DE: Vernon Press, pp. 71–91.Google Scholar
Elder, C. and Haugh, M. (2018). The interactional achievement of speaker meaning: Towards a formal account of conversational inference. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(5), 593–625.Google Scholar
Elder, C. and Savva, E. (2018). Incomplete conditionals and the syntax-pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 138, 45–59.Google Scholar
Geurts, B. (2019a). Communication as commitment sharing: Speech acts, implicatures, common ground. Theoretical Linguistics, 45(1-2), 1–30.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2008). Intention and diverging interpretings of implicature in the uncovered meat sermon. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 201–29.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 48, 41–56.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2017). Prompting offers of assistance in interactions. Pragmatics and Society, 8(2), 183–207.Google Scholar
Jary, M. (2013). Two types of implicature: Material and behavioural. Mind and Language, 28(5), 638–60.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 385–406.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2010). The paradox of communication – socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society, 1, 50–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2017). The interplay of recipient design and salience in shaping speaker’s utterance. In de Ponte, M. and Korta, K., eds., Reference and Representation in Thought and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 238–73.Google Scholar
Mazzarella, D., Reinecke, R., Noveck, I. and Mercier, H. (2018). Saying, presupposing and implicating: How pragmatics modulates commitment. Journal of Pragmatics, 133, 15–27.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2013). Is a speaker-based pragmatics possible? Or how can a hearer infer a speaker’s commitment? Journal of Pragmatics, 48, 84–97.Google Scholar
Morency, P., Oswald, S. and de Saussure, L. (2008). Explicitness, implicitness and commitment attribution: A cognitive pragmatic perspective. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 22, 197–219.Google Scholar
Sanders, R. E. (1987). Cognitive Foundations of Calculated Speech. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, R. E. (2015). A tale of two intentions: Intending what an utterance means and intending what an utterance achieves. Pragmatics and Society, 6(4), 475–501.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Ochs, E. and Thompson, S. A. (1996). Introduction. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A. and Thompson, S. A., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–51.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. ([1986] 1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind‐reading. Mind and Language, 17(1-2), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (2015). Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 15, 117–49.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2014). The importance of being indirect: A new nomenclature for indirect speech. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 28, 45–70.Google Scholar
References
Antaki, C. and Kent, A. (2012). Telling people what to do (and, sometimes, why): Contingency, entitlement and explanation in staff requests to adults with intellectual impairments. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 876–89.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9(1), 119–53.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.). (1984). Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (1992). Introduction: John Gumperz’ approach to contextualization. In Auer, P. and Di Luzio, A. (eds.), The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 1–38.Google Scholar
Benjamin, T. (2012). When problems pass us by: Using “you mean” to help locate the source of trouble. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 82–109.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals of Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. A. (2007). The Importance of Not Being Earnest: The Feeling behind Laughter and Humor. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996b). Communities, commonalities, and communication. In Gumperz, J. and Levinson, S., eds., Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 324–55.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Brennan, S. A. (1991). Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M. and Teasley, S. D., eds., Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington, DC: APA Books, pp. 127–49.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 259–94.Google Scholar
Cohen, P. R. and Perrault, E. (1979). Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts. Cognitive Science, 3(3), 177–212.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about social action. Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–47.Google Scholar
Craven, A. and Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419–42.Google Scholar
Curl, T. S. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(8), 1257–80.Google 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), 129–53.Google Scholar
Davies, B. L., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A. J. (eds.). (2011). Situated Politeness. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2011). Constructions vs. lexical items as sources of complex meanings. A comparative study of constructions with German verstehen. In Auer, P. and Pfänder, S., eds., Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 88–126.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2014). Handlungsverstehen und Intentionszuschreibung in der Interaktion I: Intentionsbekundungen mit wollen. In Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Gilles, P., Spiekermann, H. and Streck, T., eds., Sprache im Gebrauch: räumlich, zeitlich, interaktional. Festschrift für Peter Auer. Heidelberg, Germany: Winter, pp. 309–26.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2015). Retrospection and understanding in interaction. In Deppermann, A. and Günthner, S., eds., Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 57–94.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2018a). Changes in turn-design over interactional histories – the case of instructions in driving school lessons. In Deppermann, A. and Streeck, J., eds., Time in Embodied Interaction: Synchronicity and Sequentiality of Multimodal Resources. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 293–324.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2018b). Instruction practices in German driving lessons: Differential uses of declaratives and imperatives. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 265–82.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. and Kaiser, J. (in press). Intention ascriptions as a means to coordinate own actions with others’ actions. In Deppermann, A. and Haugh, M., eds., Action Ascription. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. and Haugh, M. (eds.) (2021). Action Ascription. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 470–520.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (eds.). (2014). Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.). (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–65.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Sorjonen, M. L. (2011). Dialogue in institutional interactions. In van Dijk, T. A., ed., Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, 2nd ed. London: Sage, pp. 191–216.Google Scholar
Drew, P., Hepburn, A., Margutti, P. and Galatolo, R. (eds.). (2016). Apologies in discourse. Discourse Processes, 53(1–2), 114–31.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. (1988). Intentions, language, and social action in a Samoan context. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(1), 13–33.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. (2008). Intentionality and mens rea in police interrogations: the production of actions as crimes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 177–99.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. and Sidnell, J. (2017a). The concept of action in interaction. Discourse Studies, 19(5), 515–35.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. and Sidnell, J. (2017b). The Concept of Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. and Kockelman, P. (eds.). (2017). Distributed Agency, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feilke, H. (1994). Common-Sense-Kompetenz. Überlegungen zu einer Theorie des »sympathischen« und »natürlichen« Meinens und Verstehens. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2004). Recontextualizing Context: Grammaticality Meets Appropriateness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2017). Context. In Huang, Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 259–76.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. and Oishi, E. (eds.). (2011). Context and Contexts: Parts Meet Whole? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1989). Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In Dietrich, R. F. and Graumann, C. F., eds., Language Processing in Social Context. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 17–38.Google Scholar
Fox, B. A. (2007). Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies, 9(3), 299–318.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Golato, A. (2005). Compliments and Compliment Responses: Grammatical Structure and Sequential Organization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessment and the construction of context. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 147–89.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Grosz, B. J. and Sidner, C. (1990). Plans for discourse. In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. and Pollack, M. E., eds., Intentions in Communications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 417–44.Google Scholar
Günthner, S. and Knoblauch, H. (1995). Culturally patterned speaking practices: The analysis of communicative genres. Pragmatics, 5(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Haakana, M. (2001). Laughter as a patient’s resource: Dealing with delicate aspects of medical interaction. Text, 21(1–2), 187–219.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2008). The place of intention in the interactional accomplishment of implicature. In Kecskes, I. and Mey, J., eds., Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 45–86.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 41–56.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2017). Implicatures and the inferential substrate. In Cap, P. and Dynel, M., eds., Implicitness: From Lexis to Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 281–304.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: Practices and methods. In Silverman, D., ed., Qualitative Sociology, 3rd ed. London: Sage, pp. 208–30.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2013). Epistemics in conversation. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 370–94.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Clayman, S. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In Drew, P. and Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 55–86.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Hymes, D. and Gumperz, J. J., eds., Directions in Sociolinguistics: Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. New York: Winston, Holt and Rinehart, pp. 270–320.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. and Keisanen, T. (2012). Linguistic and embodied formats for making (concrete) offers. Discourse Studies, 14(5), 587–611.Google 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.Google Scholar
Koole, T. (2015). Classroom interaction. In Tracy, K., ed., International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kreckel, M. (1981). Where do constitutive rules for speech acts come from? Language and Communication, 1(1), 73–88.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. H. (1989). Notes on overlap management in conversation: The case of delayed completion. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53(2), 167–77.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1981). The essential inadequacies of speech act models of dialogue. In Parret, H., Sbisà, M. and Verscheuren, J., eds., Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics: Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics, Urbino, July 8–14, 1979. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 473–92.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action-formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
Margutti, P., Tainio, L., Drew, P. and Traverso, V. (eds.). (2018). Inviting in telephone calls: A cross-linguistic study of social actions in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 125, 52–199.Google Scholar
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mey, J. L. (2006). Pragmatic acts. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 5–11.Google Scholar
Mondada, , L. (2017). Precision timing and timed embeddedness of imperatives in embodied courses of action. In Sorjonen, M.-L., Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Raevaara, L., eds., Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 65–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proske, N. (2017). Perspektivierung von Handlungen und Zuschreibung von Intentionalität durch pseudokoordiniertes kommen. In Deppermann, A., Proske, N. and Zeschel, A., eds., Verben im interaktiven Kontext. Bewegungsverben und mentale Verben im Gesprochenen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 177–247.Google Scholar
Rosaldo, M. Z. (1982). The things we do with words: llongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy. Language in Society, 11(2), 203–37.Google Scholar
Rossi, G. (in press). Systems of Social Action: The Case of Requesting in Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1980). Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?” Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 104–52.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversations. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 28–52.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections of talk and social structure. In Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D. H., eds., Talk and Social Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 44–70.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 161–216.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A. and Thompson, S. A., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 52–133.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 499–545.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic, pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2014). The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited. In Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, P. and Sidnell, J., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 364–99.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2017). Action in interaction is conduct under a description. Language in Society, 46(3), 313–37.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L., Raevaara, L. and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (eds.). (2017). Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. and Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(4), 297–321.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. and Peräkyläa, 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.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2005). Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(2), 131–58.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2013). Sequence organization. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 191–209.Google Scholar
Stivers, T., Mondada, L. and Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L. and Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–24.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. and Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. (2007). Human–Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Svennevig, J. (2018). Decomposing turns to enhance understanding by L2 speakers. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(4), 398–416.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2002). Politeness and formulaicity: Evidence from Cypriot Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 3(1), 179–201.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2009). On de-limiting context. In Bergs, A. and Diewald, G., eds., Context and Constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 17–42.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A. and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. In Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. E. and Schiffrin, D., eds., The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd ed. Oxford: John Wiley, pp. 466–85.Google Scholar
Weber, M. ([1922] 1968). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. New York: Bedminster.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig ([1950] 1953). Philosophical Investigations. Translated by Anscombe, G. E. M.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zinken, J. (2016). Requesting Responsibility: The Morality of Grammar in Polish and English Family Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zinken, J. and Deppermann, A. (2017). A cline of visible commitment in the situated design of imperative turns. In M.-L. Sorjonen, , L. Raevaara and Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Imperative Turns at Talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 27–63.Google Scholar
References
Alba-Juez, L. and Thompson, G. (2014). The many faces and phases of evaluation. In Thompson, G. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. (2014). An astonishing season of destiny! Evaluation in blurbs used for advertising TV series. In Thompson, G. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 197–220.Google Scholar
Besnier, N. (1993). Reported speech and affect on Nukulaelae atoll. In Hill, J. H. and Irvine, J. T., eds., Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 161–81.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93–124.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. (2009). From stance to style: Gender, interaction, and indexicality in Mexican immigrant youth slang. In Jaffe, A., ed., Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 146–70.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2016). Embodied sociolinguistics. In Coupland, N., ed., Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 173–98.Google Scholar
Burdelski, M. (2013). Socializing children to honorifics in Japanese: Identity and stance in interaction. Multilingua, 32, 247–73.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Chafe, W. and Nichols, J., eds., Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 261–72.Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2010). REVIEWS - Alexandra Jaffe (ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives (Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Pp. vii 261. Journal of Linguistics, 46(2), 518–22.Google Scholar
Conrad, S. and Biber, E. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G., eds., Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 56–73.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2009). Prosody. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J. and D’hondt, S., eds., The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 174–89.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1999). Coherent voicing: On prosody in conversational reported speech. In Bublitz, W. and Lenk, U., eds., Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to Create It and How to Describe It. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–32.Google Scholar
Coupland, J. (2013). Dance, ageing and the mirror: Negotiating watchability. Discourse and Communication, 7(1), 3–24.Google Scholar
Coupland, J. and Coupland, N. (2009). Attributing stance in discourses of body shape and weight loss. In Jaffe, A., ed., Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 227–49.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. (2001). Dialect stylization in radio talk. Language in Society, 30, 345–75.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Politeness and impoliteness. In Aijmer, K. and Andersen, G., eds., Sociopragmatics, Vol. 5 of Handbooks of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 391–436.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. (2007). The stance triangle. In Englebretson, R., ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 139–82.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. and Kärkkäinen, E. (2012). Taking a stance on emotion: Affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text and Talk, 32(4), 433–51.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H. and Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude structure and function. In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T. and Lindzey, G., eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. I, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 269–322.Google Scholar
Englebretson, R. (2007). Stancetaking in discourse: An introduction. In Englebretson, R., ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Field, M. (1997). The role of factive predicates in the indexicalization of stance: A discourse perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 799–814.Google Scholar
Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A. (2002). Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A., eds., The Language of Turn and Sequence. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 14–38.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 presidential address. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance, and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society, 18(1), 53–73.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2006). Interactive footing. In Holt, E. and Clift, R., eds., Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 16–46.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–55.Google Scholar
Gray, B. and Biber, D. (2014). Stance markers. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 219–48.Google Scholar
Haddington, P. (2006). The organization of gaze and assessments as resources for stance taking. Text and Talk, 26(3), 281–328.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2007). The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research, Language, Behaviour, Culture, 3(2), 295–317.Google Scholar
Heath, C., vom Lehn, D., Cleverly, J. and Luff, P. (2012). Revealing surprise: The local ecology and the transposition of action. In Peräkylä, A. and Sorjonen, M.-L., eds., Emotion in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 212–34.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. (2008). The evaluation of status in multi-modal texts. Functions of Language, 15(1), 64–83.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (2000) Evaluation: An introduction. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G., eds., Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A. (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jaworski, A. and Thurlow, C. (2006). The alchemy of the upwardly mobile: symbolic capital and the stylization of elites in frequent-flyer programmes. Discourse and Society, 17(1), 99–135.Google Scholar
Kadár, D. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keisanen, T. (2006). Patterns of Stance Taking: Negative Yes/no Interrogatives and Tag Questions in American English Conversation. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B71. Oulu: Oulu University Press.Google Scholar
Kiesling, S. (2009). Style as stance: Can stance be the primary explanation for patterns of sociolinguistic variation? In Jaffe, A., ed., Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 171–94.Google Scholar
Kockelman, P. (2012). Review of “Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives.” Edited by Alexandra M. Jaffe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 22(2), 105–8.Google Scholar
Kockelman, P. (2010). Language, Culture, and Mind: Natural Constructions and Social Kinds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kockelman, P. (2004). Stance and subjectivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14(2), 127–50.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2012). On digressing with a stance and not seeking a recipient response. Text and Talk, 32(4), 477–502.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2007). The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In Englebretson, R., ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 183–219.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2006). Stance-taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text and Talk, 26(6), 699–731.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of Its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on I Think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Laitinen, L. (2006). Zero person in Finnish: A grammatical resource for construing human reference. In Helasvuo, M.-L. and Campbell, L., eds., Grammar from the Human Perspective: Case, Space and Person in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 209–31.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), 723–47.Google Scholar
Martin, J. (2000). Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G., eds., Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 142–75.Google Scholar
Martin, J. and White, P. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, J. (2009). Discourse or cognition: An introduction to discursive psychology. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 28(2), 50–61.Google Scholar
Niemelä, M. (2011). Resonance in Storytelling: Verbal, Prosodic and Embodied Practices of Stance Taking. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B95. Oulu: Oulu University Press.Google Scholar
Niemelä, M. (2005). Voiced direct reported speech in conversational storytelling: Sequential patterns of stance taking. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 18, 197–221.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 335–58.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. and Capps, L. (2001). Living Narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Potter, J. (1998). Discursive social psychology: From attitudes to evaluative practices. European Review of Social Psychology, 9, 233–66.Google Scholar
Potter, J. and Edwards, D. (2003). Sociolinguistics, cognitivism and discursive psychology. International Journal of English Studies, 3(1), 93–109.Google Scholar
Rauniomaa, M. (2008). Recovery through Repetition: Returning to Prior Talk and Taking a Stance in American-English and Finnish Conversations. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B85. Oulu: Oulu University Press.Google Scholar
Romano, M. (2014). Evaluation in emotion narratives. In Thompson, G. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 367–86.Google Scholar
Scheibman, J. (2007). Subjective and intersubjective uses of generalizations in English conversation. In Englebretson, R., ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 111–39.Google Scholar
Scheibman, J. (2001). Local patterns of subjectivity in person and verb type in American English conversation. In Bybee, J. and Hopper, P., eds., Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 61–89.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1996). Narrative a self-portrait: Sociolinguistic construction of identity. Language in Society, 25, 167–203.Google Scholar
Shoaps, R. (2007). Moral irony: Modal particles, moral persons and indirect stance-taking in Sakapultek discourse. Pragmatics, 17(2), 297–335.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2006). Coordinating gesture, gaze and talk in re-enactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(4), 377–409.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2019). Coming to grips with variation in sociocultural interpretations: Methodological considerations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 50(10), 1198–215.Google Scholar
Walton, S. and Jaffe, A. (2011). Stuff white people like: Stance, class, race, and internet commentary. In Thurlow, C. and Mroczek, K., eds., Digital Discourse: Language in the New Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 199–219.Google Scholar
Wetherell, M. and Potter, J. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wu, R. (2004). Stance in Talk: A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin Final Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
References
Aijmer, K. (2018). Positioning of self in interaction: Adolescents’ use of attention-getters. In K. Beeching, C. Ghezzi, and P. Molinelli, , eds., Positioning the Self and Others: Linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 177–95.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (1992). Introduction: John Gumperz’ approach to contextualization. In Auer, P. and Di Luzio, A., eds., The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar
Auer, P. and Di Luzio, A. (eds.). (1992). The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Babcock, B. A. (ed.). (1980). Signs about Signs: The Semiotics of Self-Reference. Special Issue. Semiotica, 30(1/2).Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Edited by Holquist, M. and Emerson, C.. Translated by Holquist, M.. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bauman, R. and Sherzer, J. (eds.). (1989). Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beeching, K. (2018). Metacommenting in English and French: A variational pragmatics approach. In K. Beeching, C. Ghezzi, and P. Molinelli, , eds., Positioning the Self and Others: Linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 127–53.Google Scholar
Beeching, K., Ghezzi, C. and Molinelli, P. (eds.). (2018). Positioning the Self and Others: Linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. (1956). La nature des pronoms. In Halle, M. et al., eds., For Roman Jakobson. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 34–7.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic Performance and Interlinguistic Competence. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Briggs, C. (1986). Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bublitz, W. and Hübler, A. (eds.). (2007). Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Busse, U. and Hübler, A. (eds.). (2012). Investigations into the Meta-Communicative Lexicon of English: A Contribution to Historical Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Caton, S. C. (1993). The importance of reflexive language in George H. Mead’s theory of self and communication. In Lucy, J. A., ed., Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 315–37.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1986b). Reported speech: Some general issues. In Coulmas, F., ed., Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Daniëls, H. (2018). Diglossia: A language ideological approach. Pragmatics, 28(2), 185–216.Google Scholar
Deschrijver, C. (2018). Economic and financial terms in online interaction: Metalanguage in the Guardian comment boards during the 2010–2011 Euro Crisis bailouts. PhD dissertation, King’s College London.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. (2015). The Anthropology of Intentions: Language in a World of Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Errington, J. J. (1985). On the nature of the sociolinguistic sign. In Mertz, E. and Parmentier, R., eds., Semiotic Mediation. New York: Academic Press, pp. 287–310.Google Scholar
Errington, J. J. (1992). On the ideology of Indonesian language development: The state of a language of state. Pragmatics, 2(3), 417–26.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1984). Remarks on contrastive pragmatics. In Fisiak, J., ed., Contrastive Linguistics: Prospects and Problems. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 119–41.Google Scholar
Fukushima, S. (2013). Evaluation of (im)politeness: A comparative study among Japanese students, Japanese parents, and American students on evaluation of attentiveness. Pragmatics, 23(2), 275–99.Google Scholar
Geyer, N. (2018). Negotiating entitlement in Japanese: The case of requesting forms. In Hudson, M. E., Matsumoto, Y. and Mori, J., eds., Pragmatics of Japanese: Perspectives on Grammar, Interaction and Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 149–72.Google Scholar
Gombert, J. É. (1990). Le développement métalinguistique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. English translation, 1992, Metalinguistic Development. Hertfordshire, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Contextualization revisited. In Auer, P. and Di Luzio, A., eds., The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 39–53.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F. (1993). Metalanguage and pragmatics of deixis. In Lucy, J.A., ed., Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 127–57.Google Scholar
Harras, G., Winkler, A., Erb, S. and Proost, K. (2004). Handbuch deutscher Kommunikationsverben. 2 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2018). Corpus-based metapragmatics. In Jucker, A., Schneider, K. P. and Bublitz, W., eds., Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 615–39.Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, H. (1966). A proposal for the study of folk-linguistics. In Bright, W., ed., Sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 16–26.Google Scholar
Holt, E. (2009). Reported speech. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
Hübler, A. (2007). On the metapragmatics of gestures. In Bublitz, W. and Hübler, A., eds., Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 107–28.Google Scholar
Hudson, M. E., Matsumoto, Y. and Mori, J. (eds.). (2018). Pragmatics of Japanese: Perspectives on Grammar, Interaction and Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Irvine, J. T. (1995). Honorifics. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Jacobs, G. (1999). Preformulating the News: An Analysis of the Metapragmatics of Press Releases. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. ([1957] 1971). Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In Selected Writings II. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 130–47.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. ([1956] 1985). Metalanguage as a linguistic problem. In Selected Writings VII. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 113–21.Google Scholar
Jaworski, A., Coupland, N. and Galasiński, D. (eds.). (2004). Metalanguage: Social and Ideological Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1922). Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. New York: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Katriel, T. (1986). Talking Straight: ‘Dugri’ Speech in Israeli Sabra Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kertész, A. (1997). The reflexivity of cognitive science and the philosophy of linguistics. In A. Kertész, , ed., Metalinguistik im Wandel: Die ‘kognitive Wende’in Wissenschaftstheorie und Linguistik. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang, pp. 197–233.Google Scholar
Kroskrity, P. V. (2010). Language ideologies. In Östman, J-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. (1993a). Reflexive language and the human disciplines. In Lucy, J. A., ed., Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–32.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. (1993b). Metapragmatic presentationals: Reporting speech with quotatives in Yucatec Maya. In Lucy, J. A., ed., Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–125.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. A. (ed.). (1993). Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maschler, Y. (2009). Metalanguage in Interaction: Hebrew Discourse Markers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McKenzie, R. M. and Osthus, D. (2011). That which we call a rose by any other name would sound as sweet: Folk perceptions, status and language variation. AILA Review, 24, 100–115.Google Scholar
Mertz, E. (1993). Learning what to ask: Metapragmatic factors and methodological reification. In Lucy, J. A., ed., Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–74.Google Scholar
Mertz, E. and Yovel, J. (2000). Metalinguistic awareness. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Muntigl, P. (2007). A metapragmatic examination of therapist reformulations. In Bublitz, W. and Hübler, A., eds., Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 235–62.Google Scholar
Niedzelski, N. and Preston, D. R. (2007). Folk pragmatics. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Okamoto, S. (2018). Metapragmatic discourse in self-help books on Japanese women’s speech: An indexical approach to social meanings In Hudson, M. E., Matsumoto, Y. and Mori, J., eds., Pragmatics of Japanese: Perspectives on Grammar, Interaction and Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 246–66.Google Scholar
Penz, H. (2007). Building common ground through metapragmatic comments in international project work. In Bublitz, W. and Hübler, A., eds., Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 263–92.Google Scholar
Petykó, M. (2018). The motives attributed to trolls in metapragmatic comments on three Hungarian left-wing political blogs. Pragmatics, 28(3), 391–416.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2000). Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta: An Essay on Metarepresentation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Ortony, A., ed., Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 284–324.Google Scholar
Roulet, E. (1996). Polyphony. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
Ruesch, J. and Bateson, G. (1951). Communication: The Social Matrix of Psychiatry. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Salverda, R. (2017). “Montrer au linguiste ce qu’il fait”: Revisiting Saussure from an experimental perspective on language play. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure: Revue de Linguistique Générale, 70, 115–27.Google Scholar
Schieffelin, B. B., Kroskrity, P. V. and Woolard, K. A. (eds.). (1992). Language Ideologies. Special Issue. Pragmatics, 3(2).Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Basso, K. and Selby, H., eds., Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 11–55.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Clyne, P. R., Hanks, W. F. and Hofbauer, C. L., eds., The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 193–247.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1993). Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In Lucy, J. A., ed., Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33–58.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2019). Juggling identities in interviews: The metapragmatics of ‘doing humour’. Journal of Pragmatics. 152: 216–227.Google Scholar
Sivenkova, M. (2013). On the metapragmatics of British, German and Russian political questions and answers. In Fetzer, A., ed., The Pragmatics of Political Discourse: Explorations across Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 21–46.Google Scholar
Suzuki, S. (2018). Linguistic nationalism and fictional deception: Metapragmatic stereotype on non-Japanese in Japan. In Hudson, M. E., Matsumoto, Y. and Mori, J., eds., Pragmatics of Japanese: Perspectives on Grammar, Interaction and Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 267–87.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1956). The semantic conception of truth. Philosophical and Phenomenological Research, 4, 341–75.Google Scholar
Tunmer, W. E., Pratt, C. and Herriman, M. L. (eds.). (1984). Metalinguistic Awareness in Children: Theory, Research, and Implications. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Urban, G. (1984). Speech about speech in speech about action. The Journal of American Folklore, 97(385), 310–28.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1985a). What People Say They Do with Words: Prolegomena to an Empirical-Conceptual Approach to Linguistic Action. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1985b). International News Reporting: Metapragmatic Metaphors and the U2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1989). Language on language: Towards metapragmatic universals. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics, 3(2), 1–144.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1995). The conceptual basis of performativity. In Shibatani, M. and Thompson, S., eds., Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 297–319.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold/Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (2000). Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language use. Pragmatics, 10(4), 439–56.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. and Brisard, F. (2002). Adaptability. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J. B. and Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Wilton, A. and Stegu, M. (eds.). (2011). Applied Folk Linguistics. Special Issue. AILA Review, 24.Google Scholar
Winch, P. (1958). The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Woolard, K. and Schieffelin, B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23, 55–82.Google Scholar
Woolgar, S. (ed.). (1988). Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Sage.Google Scholar
References
Auer, P. (2009). Context and contextualization. In Verschueren, J. and Östman, J-O., eds., Key Notions for Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 86–101.Google Scholar
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language and Society, 13(2), 145–204.Google Scholar
Boyd, M. S. (2014). (New) participatory framework on YouTube? Commenter interaction in US political speeches. Journal of Pragmatics, 72, 46–58.Google Scholar
Chovanec, J. and Dynel, M. (2015). Researching interactional forms and participant structures in public and social media. In Dynel, M. and Chovanec, J., eds., Participation in Public and Social Media Interactions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Schaefer, E. F. (1992). Dealing with overhearers. In Clark, H. H., ed., Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 248–73.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. (2007). Speaking on behalf of the public in broadcast news interviews. In Holt, E. and Clift, R., eds., Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 221–43.Google Scholar
Davies, B. (2018). Evaluating evaluations: What different types of metapragmatic behaviour can tell us about participants’ understandings of the moral order. Journal of Politeness Research, 14(1), 121–51.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2010). Not hearing things – Hearer/listener categories in polylogues, http://mediazioni.sitlec.unibo.it.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2011). ‘You talking to me?’ The viewer as a ratified listener to film discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1628–44.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2014). Participation framework underlying YouTube interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 37–52.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. and Chovanec, J. (eds.). (2015). Participation in Public and Social Media Interactions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., Fernández-Amaya, L. and de la O Hernández-López, M. (eds.). (2019). Technology Mediated Service Encounters. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1963). Behaviour in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1964). The neglected situation. American Anthropologist, 66(6, part II), 133–6.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harmondsworth, UK: Peregrine Books.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. ([1979] 1981a). Footing. In Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 124–59. (Originally published in Semiotica, 25, 1–29.)Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981b). Radio talk. In Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 197–327.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2007). Interactive footing. In Holt, E. and Clift, R., eds., Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 16–46.Google Scholar
Halvorsen, K. and Sarangi, S. (2015). Team decision-making in workplace meetings: The interplay of activity roles and discourse roles. Journal of Pragmatics, 76, 1–14.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F. (1990). Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F. (1996). Exorcism and the description of participant roles. In Silverstein, M. and Urban, G., eds., Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 160–200.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 52–72.Google Scholar
Holt, E. (2009). Reported speech. In D’hondt, S., Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 190–205.Google Scholar
Holt, E. (in preparation). Reporting a rant: Loosely portrayed speech in interaction.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (2014). Communicative affordances and participation frameworks in mediated interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 72, 86–9.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D., eds., Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, pp. 35–71.Google Scholar
Irvine, J. T. (1996). Shadow conversations: The indeterminacy of participant roles. In Silverstein, M. and Urban, G., eds., Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 131–59.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. (2010). ‘In curtesie was set ful muchel hir lest’: Politeness in Middle English. In Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., Historical (Im)politeness. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 175–200.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. and Short, M. ([1981] 2007). Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. 2nd ed. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. ([1979] 1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100. (Originally in Linguistics, 17, 365–99.)Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1988). Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’ concepts of participation. In Drew, P. and Wootton, A., eds., Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 161–227.Google Scholar
Marcoccia, M. (2004). On-line polylogues: Conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(1), 115–45.Google Scholar
Meyrowitz, J. (1990). Redefining the situation: Extending dramaturgy into a theory of social change and media effects. In Riggens, S. H., ed., Beyond Goffman: Studies on Communication, Institution and Social Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 65–98.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, J. (2009). Erving Goffman. In D’hondt, S., Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 79–95.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, J. (2013). Situational transformations: The offensive-izing of an email message and the public-ization of offensiveness. Pragmatics and Society, 4(3), 369–87.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, J. (2018). Dances with footings: A Goffmanian perspective on the Soto case. Journal of Politeness Research, 14(1), 39–62.Google Scholar
Rampton, B. and Eley, L. (2018). Goffman and the everyday interactional grounding of surveillance. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies, 246.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloeff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar
Sarangi, S. and Slembrouck, S. (1996). Language, Bureaucracy and Social Control. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Saville-Troike, M. (1989). The Ethnography of Communication. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 1075–95.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. (1996). Discourse identity, social identity, and confusion in intercultural communication. Intercultural Communication Studies, 6(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. and Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2009). Participation. In D’hondt, S., Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 125–56.Google Scholar
References
Ackerman, B. P. (1978). Children’s understanding of speech acts in unconventional directive frames. Child Development, 49(2), 311–18.Google Scholar
Ardington, A. (2011). Tourist advertising of Australia: Impolite or situation-appropriate? Or a uniquely Aussie invite lost in translation. In Davies, B. L., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A. J., eds., Situated Politeness. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 253–9.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harling, K. and Vellenga, H. E. (2012). The effect of instruction on conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. System, 40, 77–89.Google Scholar
Bax, M. (2010). Rituals. In Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics, Vol. 8: Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 483–519.Google Scholar
Bell, C. (1997). Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (2011). On the descriptive ineffability of expressive meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(14), 3537–50.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burling, R. (2000). Comprehension, production and conventionalisation in the origins of language. In Knight, C., Studdert-Kennedy, M. and Hurford, J., eds., The Evolutionary Emergence of Language: Social Function and the Origin of Linguistic Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–39.Google Scholar
Cooren, F. (2000). Toward another ideal speech situation: A critique of Habermas’ reinterpretation of speech act theory. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 86, 295–317.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2010). Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3232–45.Google Scholar
Donald, M. (2011). Art and cognitive evolution. In Turner, M., ed., The Artful Mind: Cognitive Science and the Riddle of Human Creativity. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2017). “Is there a tumour in your humour?” On misunderstanding and miscommunication in conversational humour. In Gioria, R. and Haugh, M., eds., Doing Pragmatics Interculturally: Cognitive, Philosophical, and Sociopragmatic Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 55–78.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W. and House, J. (1981). Let’s Talk and Talk about It: A Pedagogic Interactional Grammar of English. Munich: Urban and Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar
Erickson, F. and Shultz, J. (1982). The Counsellor as Gatekeeper: Social Interaction in Interviews. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Escandel-Vidall, V. (1984). Norms and principles: Putting social and cognitive pragmatics together. In Márquez-Reiter, R. and Placencia, M. E., eds., Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 347–72.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1994). Dialect, register, and genre: Working assumptions about conventionalization. In Bieber, D. and Finegan, E., eds., Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–30.Google Scholar
Garvey, K. (1977). Play with language and speech. In Ervin-Tripp, S. and Kernan, C. M., eds., Child Discourse. New York: Academic Press, pp. 27–48.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. (1983). Do people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(3), 524–33.Google Scholar
Hancher, M. (1980). How to play games with words: Speech-act jokes. Journal of Literary Semantics. 9(1), 20–29.Google Scholar
House, J. (1989). Politeness in English and German: The functions of please and bitte. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G., eds., Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 96–119.Google Scholar
House, J. (2003a). English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 556–78.Google Scholar
House, J. (2003b). Misunderstanding in intercultural university encounters. In House, J., Kasper, G. and Ross, S., eds., Misunderstanding in Social Life: Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk. London: Longman, pp. 22–56.Google Scholar
House, J. (2009). Introduction: The pragmatics of English as a Lingua Franca. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 141–5.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091–1112.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. (2017). Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. (2020). Capturing injunctive norm in pragmatics: Meta-reflective evaluations and the moral order. Lingua. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102814.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and House, J. (2019). Revisiting speech acts from the perspective of ritual: A discussion note. Multilingua, 38(6), 687–92.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and House, J. (2020). Linguistic forms, standards situations and ritual frames: A contrastive pragmatic framework. Pragmatics, 30(1), 142–68.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81–104.Google Scholar
Khubchandani, L. M. (1997). Revisualizing Boundaries: A Plurilingual Rthos. New Delhi, India: Sage.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). ‘Rules for Ritual Insults’. In Sudnow, D., ed., Studies in Social Interaction. Oxford: Blackwell/The Free Press. Reprinted in Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania University Press/Basil Blackwell, pp. 297–353.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1979). Pragmatics and social deixis: Reclaiming the notion of conventional implicature. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley University Press, pp. 206–23.Google Scholar
Mills, S. and Kádár, D. Z. (2011). Politeness and culture. In Kádár, D. Z. and Mills, S., eds., Politeness in East Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21–44.Google Scholar
Montagu, A. (1967). The Anatomy of Swearing. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. L. (1977). Technical Report 52: Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Acts. Urbana: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Pizziconi, B. and Christie, C. (2017). Indexicality and (im)politeness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 143–70.Google Scholar
Planken, B. (2005). Managing rapport in lingua franca sales negotiations: A comparison of professional and aspiring negotiators. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 381–400.Google Scholar
Schieffelin, B. and Ochs, E. (eds.). (1986). Language Socialisation across Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1964). Intention and convention in speech acts. The Philosophical Review, 73(4), 439–60.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 16(4), 513–33.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2011). The effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience on pragmatic comprehension. Language Learning, 61(3), 904–39.Google Scholar
Tan, A. (1999). The language of discretion. In Ricks, C. and Michaels, L., eds., The State of Language. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 25–32.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1984). The pragmatics of cross-cultural communication. Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 189–95.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2001). Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A frame-based approach. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2013). Re-assessing the speech-act schema: Twenty-first century reflections. International Review of Pragmatics, 5(2), 197–216.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. and Kádár, D. Z. (2017). Convention and ritual (im)politeness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 171–95.Google Scholar
Thelwall, M. (2008). Fk yea I swear: Cursing and gender in MySpace. Corpora, 3(1), 83–107.Google Scholar
Van Rooy, B. (2010). Social and linguistic perspectives on variability in world Englishes. World Englishes, 29(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
Weisser, M. (2014). Speech act annotation. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 84–114.Google Scholar
References
Archer, D. (2017). Context and historical (socio)pragmatics twenty years on. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 18(2), 315–36.Google 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.Google Scholar
Askehave, I. and Swales, J. M. (2001). Genre identification and communicative purpose: A problem and a possible solution. Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 195–212.Google Scholar
Barron, A. (2005a). Variational pragmatics in the foreign language classroom. System, 33(3), 519–36.Google Scholar
Barron, A. (2005b). Offering in Ireland and England. In Barron, A. and Schneider, K. P., eds., The Pragmatics of Irish English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 141–77.Google Scholar
Barron, A. (2012). Public Information Messages: A Contrastive Genre Analysis of State-citizen Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barron, A. (2014). Variational pragmatics. In Chapelle, C. A., ed., The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (EAL): Electronic Version. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
Barron, A. (2015). Explorations in regional variation: A variational pragmatic perspective. Multilingua, 34(4), 449–59.Google Scholar
Barron, A. (2017a). The speech act of ‘offers’ in Irish English. World Englishes, 36(2), 224–38.Google Scholar
Barron, A. (2017b). Variational pragmatics. In Barron, A., Gu, Y. and Steen, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 91–104.Google Scholar
Barron, A. (in press a). Contrastivity and the pragmatic variables. Pragmatic variation across pluricentric varieties. Sociolinguistica.Google Scholar
Barron, A. (in press b). ‘Sorry Miss, I completely forgot about it’: Apologies and vocatives in Ireland and England. In Lucek, S. and Amador Moreno, C. P., eds., Expanding the Landscapes of Irish English: Research in Honour of Jeffrey Kallen. Abingdon, UK: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Barron, A. and Schneider, K. P. (2009). Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language use in interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(4), 425–42.Google Scholar
Beeching, K. and Woodfield, H. (2015). Introduction. In Beeching, K. and Woodfield, H., eds., Researching Sociopragmatic Variability: Perspectives from Variational, Interlanguage and Contrastive Pragmatics. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G. (eds.). (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google 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. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–289.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burmeister, M. (2013). Variability in death notices from Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland: A comparative perspective. In Bieswanger, M. and Koll-Stobbe, A., eds., New Approaches to the Study of Variability. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang, pp. 65–88.Google Scholar
Cameron, R. and Schwenter, S. (2013). Pragmatics and variationist sociolinguistics. In Bayley, R., Cameron, R. and Lucas, C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 464–83.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J. (2007). Discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(2), 155–93.Google Scholar
Copestake, A. and Terkourafi, M. (2010). Conventionalized speech act formulae: From corpus findings to formalization. In Kühnlein, P., Benz, A. and Sidner, C. L., eds., Constraints in Discourse 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 125–40.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2009). Historical sociopragmatics: An introduction. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 10(2), 179–86.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Demmen, J. (2011). Nineteenth-century English politeness: Negative politeness, conventional indirect requests and the rise of the individual self. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 12(1–2), 49–81.Google Scholar
De Saint-Georges, I. (2013). Context in the analysis of discourse and interaction. In Chapelle, C. A., ed., The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. New York: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 920–26.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, A. (2013). Variation and change. In Bayley, R., Cameron, R. and Lucas, C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 484–502.Google Scholar
Deutschmann, M. (2003). Apologising in British English. Skrifter från moderna språk 10. Umeå University.Google Scholar
Dines, E. (1980). Variation in discourse – ‘and stuff like that’. Language in Society, 9(1), 13–31.Google Scholar
Dinkin, A. J. (2018). It’s no problem to be polite: Apparent-time change in responses to thanks. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 22(2), 190–215.Google Scholar
Eckkrammer, E. M. (2002). Textsorten im interlingualen und -medialen Vergleich: Ausschnitte und Ausblicke. In Drescher, M., ed., Textsorten im romanischen Sprachvergleich. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 15–39.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2015). The Language of Service Encounters: A Pragmatic-Discursive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2010). Contexts in context: Micro meets macro. In Tanskanen, S.-K., Helasvuo, M.-L., Johansson, M. and Raitaniemi, M., eds., Discourses in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–31.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. and Goodwin, C. (1987). Children’s arguing. In Philips, S., Steele, S. and Tanz, C., eds., Language, Gender, and Sex in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 200–248.Google Scholar
Hamilton, E. L. (2018). Greetings! The high five and the fist bump are twentieth century, but the first handshake dates to fifth century B.C. Greece, as way to prove you were weapon free. www.thevintagenews.com/2018/04/12/handshake/.Google Scholar
Harting, A. (2005). Pragmatic idioms in Australian English – A survey of gender and age-related usage of greetings, leave-takings, thanks, and apologies. Studies in Language and Literature 松山大学, 24(2), 53–79.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. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–33.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (ed.). (1995). Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (2010). Historical pragmatics. In Fried, M., Östman, J. and Verschueren, J., eds., Variation and Change: Pragmatic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 110–22.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (2011). Greetings and farewells in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. In Pahta, P. and Jucker, A. H., eds., Communicating Early English Manuscripts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 229–40.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (2017). Speech acts and speech act sequences: Greetings and farewells in the history of American English. Studia Neophilologica, 89(S1), 39–58.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Landert, D. (2017). Variation and change: Historical pragmatics. In Barron, A., Gu, Y. and Steen, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 79–90.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. (2012). Pragmatic variables. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. and Conde-Silvestre, J. C., eds., The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 293–306.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. London: Continuum, pp. 317–41.Google Scholar
Krzeszowski, T. P. (1990). Contrasting Languages: The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lavandera, B. R. (1978). Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society, 7(2), 171–82.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. (2003). Pragmatic variation in Spanish: External request modifications in Uruguayan and Peninsular Spanish. In Nuñez-Cedeño, L., López, L. and Cameron, R., eds., A Romance Perspective on Language Knowledge and Use. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 166–80.Google Scholar
McCafferty, K. and Amador Moreno, C. P. (2014). ‘[The Irish] find much difficulty in these auxiliaries …putting will for shall with the first person’: The decline of first-person shall in Ireland, 1760–1890. English Language and Linguistics, 18(3), 407–29.Google Scholar
Mela, S. and Whitworth, D. E. (2014). The fist bump: A more hygienic alternative to the handshake. American Journal of Infection Control, 42(8), 916–17.Google Scholar
Norrby, C., Wide, C., Lindström, J. and Nilsson, J. (2015). Interpersonal relationships in medical consultations: Comparing Sweden Swedish and Finland Swedish address practices. Journal of Pragmatics, 84, 121–38.Google Scholar
Ogiermann, E. (2009). On Apologising in Negative and Positive Politeness Cultures. Amsterdem: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pichler, H. (2010). Methods in discourse variation analysis: Reflections on the way forward. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14(5), 581–608.Google Scholar
Pichler, H. (2013). The Structure of Discourse-Pragmatic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Regan, A. (2008). Current conversation patterns in the Republic of Ireland. Journal for EuroLinguistix, 5, 101–8.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2010). Variational pragmatics. In Fried, M., Östman, J. and Verschueren, J., eds., Variation and Change: Pragmatic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 239–67.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2014). Comparability and sameness in variational pragmatics. In Mergenthal, S. and Nischik, R. M., eds., Anglistentag 2013 Konstanz: Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, pp. 361–72.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2017). Pragmatic competence and pragmatic variation. In Giora, R. and Haugh, M., eds., Doing Pragmatics Interculturally: Cognitive, Philosophical, and Sociopragmatic Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 315–33.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2020). Rethinking pragmatic variation: The case of service encounters from a modified variational pragmatics perspective. In Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and Placencia, M. E., eds., Pragmatic Variation in Service Encounter Interactions across the Spanish-Speaking World. London: Routledge, pp. 251–64.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A. (2008). Where pragmatics and dialectology meet: Introducing variational pragmatics. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A. (eds.). (2008). Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2009). Sequences. In D’Hondt, S., Östman, J. and Verschueren, J., eds., The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 215–39.Google Scholar
Staley, L. (2018). Socioeconomic Pragmatic Variation: Speech Acts and Address Forms in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research Genres: Exploration and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. (2015). Historical pragmatics. In Biber, D. and Reppen, R., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 252–68.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. (2016). Genre dynamics in the history of English. In Kytö, M. and Pahta, P., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 271–85.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. and Jucker, A. H. (2010). Trends and developments in historical pragmatics. In Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I., eds., Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 3–30.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. and Jucker, A. H. (2015). Twenty years of historical pragmatics: Origins, developments and changing thought styles. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 16(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A. (2012). Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2002). Politeness and formulaicity: Evidence from Cypriot Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 3(1), 179–201.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2011). The pragmatic variable: Toward a procedural interpretation. Language in Society, 40, 343–72.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2012). Between pragmatics and sociolinguistics: Where does pragmatic variation fit in? In Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and Dale, K., eds., Pragmatic Variation in First and Second Language Contexts: Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 295–318.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (2008). Context and structure in a theory of pragmatics. Studies in Pragmatics, 10, 13–23.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts: Polish vs. English. Journal of Pragmatics, 9(2/3), 145–78.Google Scholar
Włodarczyk, M. (2016). Genre and Literacies: Historical (Socio)Pragmatics of the 1820 Settler Petition. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.Google Scholar
Włodarczyk, M. (2017). Initiating contact in institutional correspondence: Historical (socio)pragmatics of late modern English literacies. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 18(29), 271–94.Google Scholar
Yajun, J. and Chenggang, Z. (2006). World Englishes and contrastive rhetoric. English Today, 2(2), 11–22.Google Scholar
References
Allwood, J. (2000). An activity based approach to pragmatics. In Blunt, H. and Black, W., eds., Abduction, Belief and Context in Dialogue: Studies in Computational Pragmatics. Ambsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 47–80.Google Scholar
Allwood, J. (1976). Linguistic communication as action and cooperation. Gothenburg Manuscripts in Linguistics 2. Göteburg.Google Scholar
Archer, D. (2017). Politeness. In Baron, A., Gu, Y. and Steen, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. London: Routledge, pp. 384–98.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Translated by McGee, V. W.. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Barron, A. and Schneider, K. P. (2014). Discourse pragmatics: Signposting a vast field. In Schnieder, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Pragmatics of Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
Barlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bawarshi, A. S. and Reiff, M. J. (2010). An Introduction to History, Theory, Research and Pedagogy. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C. (1997). The life of genre, the life of the classroom. In Bishop, W. and Ostrom, H., eds., Genre and Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook-Heinemann, pp. 19–26.Google Scholar
Belton, R. J. (1996). The Elements of Art. Art History: A Preliminary Handbook. www.academia.edu/23437708/Art_History_A_Preliminary_Handbook_1996.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. J. (2004). Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-Based View. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (2008). Towards critical genre analysis. In Bhatia, V. K., Flowerdew, J. and Jones, R. H., eds., Advances in Discourse Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 166–77.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Button, G. (1992). Answers as interactional products: Two sequential practices used in job interviews. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 212–31.Google Scholar
Claridge, C. (2012). Styles, registers, genres, text types. In Bergs, A. T. and Brinton, L. J., eds., English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 237–53.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Haugh, M. (2014). Pragmatics and the English Language. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and MacIntyre, D. (2010). Activity types and characterisation in dramatic discourse. In Eder, J., Jannidis, F. and Schneider, R., eds., Characters in Fictional Worlds: Understanding Imaginary Beings in Literature, Film, and Other Media. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 176–207.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H., van. (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragmadialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H., van and Garssen, B. (2013). Argumentative patterns in discourse. In Mohammed, D. and Lewiński, M., eds., Virtues of Argumentation: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22–26 May 2013. Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Forgas, J. P. (1979). Social Episodes: The Study of Interaction Routines. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organisation of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P., ed., Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, A. D. (1990). Research on conflict talk: Antecedents, resources, findings, directions. In Grimshaw, A. D., ed., Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments and Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 281–324.Google Scholar
Gumperz, E. (1972). Introduction. In Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D., eds., Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language and Communicative Practices. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. (2001). Textual Interaction: An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2008). “Small bits of textual material”: A discourse analysis of Swales’ writing. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 143–60.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1962). The ethnography of speaking. In Gladwin, T. and Sturtevant, W., eds., Anthropology and Human Behavior. Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington, p. 13–53.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvannia Press.Google Scholar
Hyon, S. (2008). Convention and inventiveness in an occluded academic genre: A case study of retention-promotion-tenure reports. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 175–92.Google Scholar
Lee, D. Y. W. (2001). Genres, registers text types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning and Technology, 5(3), 37–72.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work. Mouton: The Hague, pp. 66–100.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching Dialogue: Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (2010). Communicative activity types as organisations in discourses and discourses in organisations. In Tanskanen, S., Helasvuo, M., Johansson, M., Karhukorpi, J. and Raitaniemi, M., eds., Discourses in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 33–59.Google Scholar
Linell, P. and Thunqvist, D. P. (2003). Moving in and out of framings: Activity contexts in talks with young unemployed people within a training project. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 409–34.Google Scholar
LoCastro, V. (2013). Pragmatics for Language Educators: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Luckmann, T. (1992). On the communicative adjustment of perspectives, dialogue and communicative genres. In Wold, A. H., ed., The Dialogical Alternative. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, pp. 219–34.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. (1984). Language, register and genre. In Christie, F., ed., Children Writing: Reader. Geelong, VI: Deakin University Press, pp. 21–30.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. (1985). Process and text: Two aspects of semiosis. In Benson, J. D. and Greaves, W. S., eds., Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, Vol. 1: Selected Theoretical Papers from the Ninth International Systemic Workshop. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 248–74.Google Scholar
Matsuda, P. and Tardy, C. (2007). Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 235–49.Google Scholar
Mayes, P. (2003). Language, Social Structure, and Culture: A Genre Analysis of Cooking Classes in Japan and America. Amsterdam: John Benajmins.Google Scholar
Miller, C. R. (1984). Genres as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151–67.Google Scholar
Mooney, A. (2004). Co-operation, violations and making sense. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 899–920.Google Scholar
Neisser, U. (1976). Reality: Principles and Implications of Cognitive Psychology. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Paltridge, B. (1997). Genre, Frames and Writing in Research Settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ross, R. N. (1975). Ellipsis and the structure of expectation. San Jose State Occupational Papers in Linguistics, 1, 183–91.Google Scholar
Sarangi, S. (2000). Activity types, discourse types and interactional hybridity: The case of genetic counselling. In Sarangi, S. and Coulthard, M., eds., Discourse and Social Life. London: Pearson Education, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. (1982). Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Reminding and Learning in Computers and People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. (1999). Dynamic Memory Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swales, J. (2004). Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. (2001). Changing conventions of writing: The dynamics of genres, text types, and text traditions. European Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 139–50.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. and Wallat, C. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In Tannen, D., ed., Framing in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 57–76.Google Scholar
Tardy, C. M. and Swales, J. M. (2014). Genre analysis. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Pragmatics of Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 165–88.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2009). On de-limiting context. In Bergs, A. and Diewald, G., eds., Context and Constructions. Constructional Approaches to Language 9. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–42.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2001). Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A Frame-Based Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
van der Merwe, P. (1989). Origins of the Popular Style: The Antecedents of Twentieth-Century Popular Music. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations. 2nd ed. Translated by Ansycombe, G. E. M.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Włodarczyk, M. (2016). Genre and Literacies: Historical (Socio)pragmatics of the 1820 Settler Petition. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.Google Scholar
References
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics: Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association, 9(1), 119–53.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2078–2105.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2020). Communicating and Relating: Constituting Face in Everyday Interacting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Blattner, G. and Fiori, M. (2011). Virtual social network communities: An investigation of language learners’ development of sociopragmatic awareness and multiliteracy skills. CALICO Journal, 29(1), 24–43.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A Critical Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. and De Fina, A. (2015). Chronotopic identities. In De Fina, A., Ikizoglu, D. and Wegner, J., eds., Diversity and Super-diversity: Sociocultural Linguistic Perspective. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2018). Durkheim and the Internet: On Sociolinguistics and the Sociological Imagination. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. J. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boxer, D. (2002). Discourse issues in cross-cultural pragmatics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 150–67.Google Scholar
Boxer, D. and Cortés-Conde, F. (1997). From bonding to biting: Conversational joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(3), 275–94.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2004). Theorizing identity in language and sexuality research. Language in Society, 33(4), 469–515.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2008). Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A., eds., Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, vol. 21. New York: Mouton Gruyter, pp. 17–44.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (2006). Communities of practice. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2, 683–5.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. and McConnel-Ginet, S. (1992). Communities of practice: Where language, gender, and power all live. In Hall, K., Bucholtz, M. and Moonwoman, B., eds., Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Woman and Language Conference, vol. 2, pp. 80–99.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1999). New generalizations and explanations in language and gender research. Language in Society, 28(2), 185–201.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2009). Relationship thinking and human pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(1), 60–78.Google Scholar
Erickson, F. and Schultz, J. (1982). The Counselor as Gatekeeper. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39(2), 170–210.Google Scholar
Fletcher, J. K. (1999). Disappearing Acts: Gender, Power, and Relational Practice at Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1959). The moral career of the mental patient. Psychiatry, 22(2), 123–42.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of a Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1971). Language in Social Groups. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J., Jupp, T. and Roberts, C. (1979). Crosstalk. Southall, UK: BBC/National Centre for Industrial Language Training.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1973). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Haugh, M., Kádár, D. and Mills, S. (2013). Interpersonal pragmatics: Issues and debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 1–11.Google Scholar
Herring, S. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In Barab, S. A., Kling, R. and Gray, J. H., eds., An Approach to Researching Online Behavior: Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 338–76.Google Scholar
Herring, S., Johnson, D. and DiBenedetto, T. (1992). Participation in electronic discourse in a ‘feminist’ field. In Hall, K. et al., eds., Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 250–62.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Schnurr, S. (2006). Doing femininity at work: More than just relational practice. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(1), 31–51.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs-Huey, L. (1997). Is there an authentic African American speech community? CARLA revisited. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(1), 331–70.Google Scholar
Kirilova, M. and Angouri, J. (2018). You are now one of us – negotiating ‘fitting in’ in the workplace. In Creese, A. and Blackledge, A., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Superdiversity. London: Routledge, pp. 345–60.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Le Page, R. B. and Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L. (2010). Introduction to interpersonal pragmatics. In Locher, M. and Graham, S. L., eds., Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2008). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behavior. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A., eds., Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77–99.Google Scholar
Marwick, A. E. and boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society, 13(1), 114–33.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1995). Aptitude from an information-processing perspective. Language Testing, 12(3), 370–87.Google Scholar
Marmaridou, S. (2011). Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. In Bublitz, W. and Norrick, N., eds., Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77–106.Google Scholar
Marra, M. (2013). English in the workplace. In Paltridge, B. and Starfield, S., eds., The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Blackwell, pp. 175–92.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (1978). Belfast: Change and variation in urban vernacular. In Trudgill, P. et al., eds., Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English. London: Arnold, pp. 19–36.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (1985). Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics, 21(2), 339–84.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. and Milroy, J. (1992). Social network and social class: Toward an integrated sociolinguistic model. Language in Society, 21(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1995). Aptitude from an information-processing perspective. Language Testing, 12(3), 370–87.Google Scholar
Paolillo, J. C. (2001). Language variation on Internet Relay Chat: A social network approach. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(2), 180–213.Google Scholar
Ravert, R. (2001). Adolescent chat style. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Rampton, B. (2011). Linguistic ethnography, interactional sociolinguistics and the study of identities. In Wei, Li, ed, The Routledge Applied Linguistics Reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rampton, B. (2008). Disciplinary mixing: Types and case. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 525–31.Google Scholar
Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Finding Connection in a Computerized World. Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.Google Scholar
Schnurr, S. and Zayts, O. (2011). Be (com)ing a leader: A case study of co-constructing professional identities at work. In Angouri, J. and Marra, M., eds., Constructing Identities at Work. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 40–60.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1996). Interactional sociolinguistics. Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, 4, 307-28.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2002). Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 529–45.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. & Jiang, W. (2003). Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings: Moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles (SIPs). Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10–11), 1633–50.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M., Catedral, L., Haider, I., Kaimzad, F., Melgares, J., Mostacero-Pinilla, C., Nelson, J. and Weissman, B. (2018). Uncivil Twitter: A sociopragmatic analysis. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 6(1), 26–57.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. (1999). Critical discourse analysis at the end of the twentieth century. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(1-2), 185–93.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, M. (2011). Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter. New Media and Society, 13(5), 788–806.Google Scholar