We equip processes with the capabilities of storing values (memory) and performing local computation. The resulting choreographic and process languages are called, respectively, Stateful Choreographies and Stateful Processes. We update the notion of EPP to these new languages.

The theory of common ground is an important analytical tool in linguistics and intercultural pragmatics. Common ground has applicability in the characterization of speech acts and allows for distinguishing, for example, between an assertive, which requires a dynamic common ground, and a declarative that depends more on appropriate contextual factors for a successful realization. The theory of common ground is intrinsically linked to how knowledge relates to language and how a discourse advances between interlocutors. As such, the creation and maintenance of common ground has consequences for our stance on knowledge and what we KNOW, BELIEVE, DESIRE, and our INTENTIONS for action. There are many kinds of knowledge and a relevant portion of these are framed within a discourse situation, with common ground. We discuss the interfaces and relationship between situation, context, common ground, and knowledge including cultural knowledge, drawing on the thinking of Malinowski and Firth, and others. The challenges addressed are: (a) how do we ground the notions of context and common ground and their contents, with the appropriate level of specificity? (b) how do we represent them in such a way to become operationally useful in linguistic analysis? and (c) how do we show how context and common ground contribute to utterance meaning?

Chapter 5 examines a key phenomenon in the field of cross-cultural pragmatics, namely, linguistic politeness and impoliteness. While politeness popularly describes ‘proper’ behaviour, as a technical term it encompasses all kinds of behaviour by means of which language users express that they take others’ feelings into account. Similarly, impoliteness not only refers to rude language but rather it covers all types of behaviour that are felt to cause offence. Politeness and impoliteness have been the most researched phenomena in the field, and in chapter 5 we provide a summary of those politeness- and impoliteness-related phenomena which are particularly relevant for cross-cultural pragmatic inquiries.

In Chapter 9 we examine discourse, the highest analytic unit. First, we argue that there is a major difference between the ways in which ‘discourse’ is investigated in cross-cultural pragmatics and some other fields such as Critical Discourse Analysis. To highlight differences between cross-cultural pragmatic research on discourse and Critical Discourse Analysis, we distinguish the term ‘cda’ from CDA, as an acronym from ‘contrastive discourse analysis’. We point out that discourse in cross-cultural pragmatics can be rigorously investigated through the logic of empirical research proposed by the philosopher Karl Popper. Following this, we examine various pragmatic units of analysis which are, at the same time, components of discourse itself, by arguing that discourse can only be approached rigorously across linguacultures if it is broken down into components, that is, if we systematise the units constituting data representing discourse. We also show how discourse as a departure point for analysis can be approached in cross-cultural pragmatics.