Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgment
- Contributors
- Introduction The Rise of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Part I Theoretical Foundation
- Part II Key Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics Research
- Part III Interface of Intercultural Pragmatics and Related Disciplines
- Part IV Intercultural Pragmatics in Different Types of Communication
- Part V Language Learning
- Index
- References
Part II - Key Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics Research
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 September 2022
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgment
- Contributors
- Introduction The Rise of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Part I Theoretical Foundation
- Part II Key Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics Research
- Part III Interface of Intercultural Pragmatics and Related Disciplines
- Part IV Intercultural Pragmatics in Different Types of Communication
- Part V Language Learning
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics , pp. 105 - 394Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
References
Auer, P. (1992). Introduction: John Gumperz’ approach to contextualization. In Auer, P. and Luzio, A. Di, eds., The Contextualization of Language (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 22). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, P. (2009). Context and contextualization. In Verschueren, J. and Östman, J., eds., Key Notions for Pragmatics (Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 1). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 86–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, W. (1987). Schemas versus mental models in human memory. In Morris, P., eds., Modelling Cognition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 187–197.Google Scholar
Chein, M. and Mugnier, M. (2008). Graph-based Knowledge Representation: Computational Foundations of Conceptual Graphs (Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing). London: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, E. (2019). On the interaction of core and emergent common ground in internet memes. Internet Pragmatics: Special issue on the Pragmatics of Internet Memes, 3(2), 223–259. https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00033.die.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1968). Selected Papers of J. R. Firth. London: Longmans/Prentice Hall Press.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. (2016). Discourse in Context: Contemporary Applied Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2010). Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 2889–2897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2013a). Intercultural pragmatics. In Sharifian, F., and Jamarani, M., eds., Language and Intercultural Communication in the New Era. London: Routledge, pp. 39–59.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2013b). Intercultural encyclopedic knowledge, and cultural models. In Sharifian, F. and Jamarani, M., eds., Language and Intercultural Communication in the New Era. London: Routledge, pp. 39–59.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2015). Language, culture, and context. In Sharifian, F., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. Oxford/New York: Routledge, pp. 113–128.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Mey, J. (2008). Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17(2), 331–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemos, N. (2007). An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. Supplement I to Ogden, C. K. and Richard, I. A., eds., The Meaning of Meaning. New York: Harcourt Brace, pp. 296–336.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. ([1944] 1960). A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mey, J. (2008). “Impeach or exorcise?” Or, what is in the (common) ground? In Kecskes, I. and Mey, J., eds., Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 255–276.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In Winston, P. H., ed., The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, pp. 311–377.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B. (1988). Philipp Wegener’s (1848–1916) theory of language and communication. Henry Sweet Society for the History of Linguistic Ideas Bulletin, 11(1), 11–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02674971.1988.11745345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerlich, B. (1990). Change in Language: Whitney, Bréal and Wegener (Routledge History of Linguistic Thought Series). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B. and Clarke, D. (1996). Language, Action and Context: The Early History of Pragmatics in Europe and America (Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Volume 80). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1780–1930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, B. (2008). Modality in RRG: Towards a characterisation using Irish data. In Van Valin, R., ed., Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface: Studies in Language Companion Series 105. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins, pp. 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, B. (2012). The Structure of Modern Irish: A Functional Account. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Nolan, B. (2013). Constructions as grammatical objects: A case study of the prepositional ditransitive construction in Modern Irish. In Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E., Linking Constructions into functional linguistics (Studies in Language Companion Series 145). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins, pp. 143–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, B. (2014). Extending a lexicalist functional grammar through speech acts, constructions and conversational software agents. In Nolan, B. and Periñán, C., eds., Language Processing and Grammars: The Role of Functionally Oriented Computational Models (Studies in Language Companion Series 150). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins, pp. 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, B. (2017). The syntactic realisation of complex events and complex predicates in situations of Irish. In Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E., eds., Argument Realisation in Complex Predicates and Complex Events (Studies in Language Companion Series 180). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins, pp. 13–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E. (2013). Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics (Studies in Language Companion Series 145). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Östman, J. and Simon-Vandenbergen, A. (2009). Firthian linguistics. In Senft, G., Östman, J., and Verschueren, J., eds., Culture and Language Use. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 140–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panesar, K. (2017). A linguistically centred text-based conversational software agent. Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Computing, Creative Technologies and Engineering, Leeds Beckett University.Google Scholar
Panesar, K. (2019a). Functional linguistic-based motivations for a conversational software agent. In Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E., eds., Linguistic Perspectives on the Construction of Meaning and Knowledge. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 340–371.Google Scholar
Panesar, K. (2019b). An evaluation of a linguistically motivated conversational software agent framework. Journal of Computer-Assisted Linguistic Research, 3(3): 41–66. https://doi.org/10.4995/jclr.2019.11118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pojman, L. P. (2001). What Can We Know? An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Belmont: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2018). What Is This Thing Called Knowledge? Oxford/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescher, N. (2003). Epistemology: An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. (1975). The structure of episodes in memory. In Bobrow, D. G. and Collins, A., eds., Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 421–432.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. (1975). Scripts, plans, and knowledge. In Johnson-Laird, P. N., ed., Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science. New York: Academic Press, Inc, pp. 237–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senft, G. Östman, J. and Verschueren, J. (2009). Culture and language use. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senft, G. (2007). Bronislaw Malinowski and Linguistic Pragmatics. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 3, 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senft, G. (2009a). Introduction. In Senft, G., Östman, J., and Verschueren, J., eds., Culture and Language Use. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senft, G. (2009b). Bronislaw Kasper Malinowski. In Senft, G., Östman, J., and Verschueren, J., eds., Culture and Language Use (Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 210–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serangi, S. (2009). Culture. In Senft, G., Östman, J., and Verschueren, J., eds., Culture and Language Use. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural Conceptualisations and Language: Theoretical Framework and Applications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2015a). Cultural linguistics. In Sharifian, F., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. Oxford/New York: Routledge, pp. 473–492.Google Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2015b). Language and culture: overview. In Sharifian, F.. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. Oxford/New York: Routledge, pp. 3–18.Google Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2015c). The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. New York/London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural Linguistics: Cultural Conceptualisations and Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, F and Palmer, G. B. (2007). Applied Cultural Linguistics: Implications for Second Language Learning and Intercultural Communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sowa, J. F. (1984). Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Sowa, J. F. (1987). Semantic networks. In Shapiro, S. C., ed., Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 1011–1024.Google Scholar
Sowa, J. F. (1997). Matching logical structure to linguistic structure, In Houser, N., Roberts, D., and Evra, J. Van, eds., Studies in the Logic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, pp. 418–444.Google Scholar
Sowa, J. F. (2008). Conceptual graphs. In van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., and Porter, B., eds., Handbook of Knowledge Representation. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 213−237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole, ed., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. IX: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 315–332. Repr. in R. C. Stalnaker (1999), Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 78–95.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (1998). On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information. Repr. in R. C. Stalnaker (1999), Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 96–114.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (1999a). Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (1999b). Introduction. In R. C. Stalnaker, Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Stanford] (2020). Speech acts. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. Section 3.3 Seven Components of Illocutionary Force. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/ (retrieved on April 16, 2021).Google Scholar
Wegener, P. [1885] (1991). Untersuchungen über die Grundfragen des Sprachlebens (Investigations into the Fundamental Questions of the Life of Language). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigand, edda. (2021). Language and dialogue in philosophy and science. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 533–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, R. (2016). Political discourse analysis: Distinguishing frontstage and backstage contexts: A discourse-historical approach. In J. Flowerdew. Discourse in Context: Contemporary Applied Linguistics, Vol. III. London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 321–346.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. and Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
References
Alexander, J. C. and Giesen, B. (1987). Introduction. In Alexander, J. C., ed., The Micro-Macro Link. Berkley: The University of California Press, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Akman, V., Bouquet, P., Thomason, R., and Young, R. A. (eds.) (2001). Modeling and Using Context: Third International and Interdisciplinary Conference Proceedings. Vol. 2116. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. (2008). Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armon, R. (2019). Ordinary science. In Fetzer, A. and Weizman, E., eds., The Construction of “Ordinariness” across Media Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, K. (1997). The semantics–pragmatics distinction: What it is and why it matters. In Rolf, E., ed., Pragmatik. Linguistische Berichte (Forschung Information Diskussion). Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 33–50.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (2006). The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. In Birner, B. and Ward, G., eds., Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honour of Laurence R. Horn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 33–50.Google Scholar
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Chandler Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Blackburn, P., Ghidini, C., Turner, R. M., and Giunchiglia, F. (eds.) (2003). Modeling and Using Context: 4th International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT 2003, Stanford, CA, USA, June 23 –25, 2003, Proceedings (Vol. 2680). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouquet, P., Serafini, L., Brézillon, P., Benerecetti, M., and Castellani, F. (eds.) (1999). Modeling and Using Context: Second International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT’99, Trento, Italy, September 9 –11, 1999, Proceedings (Vol. 1688). Heidelberg: Springer Science and Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brézillon, P., Turner, R., and Penco, C. (eds.). (2017). Modeling and Using Context: 10th International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT 2017, Paris, France, June 20 –23,2017, Proceedings (Vol. 10257). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Beaugrande, R. A. and Dressler, W. (1981). Einführung in die Textlinguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A. (1994). Negative Interaktionen: Kommunikative Strategien im britischen Englisch und interkulturelle Inferenzen. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. and Akman, V. (2002). Contexts of social action: Guest editors’ introduction. Language and Communication, 22(4), 391–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2004). Recontextualizing Context: Grammaticality Meets Appropriateness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2007a). Reformulation and common grounds. In Fetzer, A. and Fischer, K., eds., Lexical Markers of Common Grounds. London: Elsevier, pp. 157–179.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2007b). Challenges in political interviews: An intercultural analysis. In Fetzer, A. and Lauerbach, G., eds., Political Discourse in the Media: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 163–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2010). Contexts in context: Micro meets macro. In Tanskanen, S.-K., Helasvuo, M.-L., Johansson, M., Karhukorpi, J., and Raitaniemi, M., eds., Discourses in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2011). “Here is the difference, here is the passion, here is the chance to be part of a great change”: Strategic context importation in political discourse. In Fetzer, A. and Oishi, E., eds., Contexts in Context: Parts Meet Whole? Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 115–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2012). Contexts in interaction: Relating pragmatic wastebaskets. In Finkbeiner, R., Meibauer, J., and Schumacher, P., eds., What Is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2017). Context. In Huang, Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 259–276.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2018). Discourse pragmatics: Communicative action meets discourse analysis. In Ilie, C. and Norrick, N., eds., Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 33–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2020). And I quote: Forms and functions of quotations in Prime Minister’s Questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 157, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2021). Computer-mediated discourse in context: Pluralism of communicative action and discourse common ground. In Chaoqun, X., Yus, F., and Haberland, H., eds., Approaches to Internet Pragmatics: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 47–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, R., Meibauer, J., and Schumacher, R. (eds.) (2012). What Is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Contextualization and understanding. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 229–252.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1996). The linguistic and cultural relativity of inference. In Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 374–406.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (2003). Response essay. In Eerdmans, S., Prevignano, C., and Thibault, P. J., eds., Language and Interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language form and communicative practices. In Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 232–270.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A. (2009). Entextualization, mediatization and authentication: Orthographic choice in media transcripts. Text and Talk, 29(5), 571–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janney, R. W. (2002). Cotext as context: Vague answers in court. Language and Communication, 22(4), 457–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. (2005). Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkham, S. and Moore, E. (2016). Constructing social meaning in political discourse: Phonetic variation and verb processes in Ed Miliband’s speeches. Language in Society, 45 (1), 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. (1988). Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In Drew, P. and Wootton, A., eds., Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 161–227.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1995). Interactional bias in human thinking. In Goody, E., ed., Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 221–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. (2003). Contextualizing “contextualization cues.” In Eerdmans, S., C. Prevignano, and P. J. Thibault, eds., Language and Interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Meierkord, C. and Fetzer, A. (2002). Introduction: Sequence, sequencing, sequential organization and sequentiality. In Fetzer, A. and Meierkord, C., eds., Rethinking Sequentiality: Linguistics Meets Conversational Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
Nyan, T. (2016). Context Construction as Mediated by Discourse Markers: An Adaptive Approach. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, J. S. Y. and Bucholtz, M. (2009). Introduction. Public transcripts: Entextualization and linguistic representation in institutional contexts, Text and Talk, 5, 485–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penco, C. (1999). Objective and cognitive context. In P. Bouquet, L. Serafini, P. Brézillon, M. Benerecetti, and F. Castellani, eds., 2nd International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context, Context’99, Proceedings. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 270–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Between macro and micro: Contexts and other connections. In Alexander, J., B. Giesen, R. Münch, and N. J. Smelser, eds., The Micro-Macro Link. Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 207–234.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2009). On de-limiting context. In Bergs, A. and Diewald, G., eds., Context and Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2019). Coming to grips with variation in sociocultural interpretations: Methodological considerations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 50(10), 1198–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thibault, P. (2003). Contextualization and social meaning-making practices. In Eerdmans, S., Prevignano, C., and Thibault, P. J., eds., Language and Interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, T. (2008). Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voltolini, Alberto. (2021). A contextualist treatment of negative
existentials. IntercultPragmatics, 18(3), 415–424.Google Scholar
Weizman, E. (2007). Quantity scales: Towards culture-specific profiles of discourse norms. In Grein, M. and Weigand, E., eds., Dialogue and Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Baird, R., Baker, W., and Kitazawa, M. (2014). The complexity of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(1), 171–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazzanella, C. and Damiano, R. (1999). The interactional handling of misunderstanding in everyday conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(6), 817–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Björkman, B. (2011). Pragmatic strategies in English as an academic lingua franca: Ways of achieving communicative effectiveness. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 950–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Björkman, B. (2014). An analysis of polyadic English as a lingua franca (ELF) speech: A communicative strategies framework. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 122–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremer, K., Roberts, C., Vasseur, M-T., Simonot, M., and Broeder, P. (1996). Achieving Understanding: Discourse in Intercultural Encounters. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bührig, K. and ten Thije, J. D. (2006). Beyond Misunderstanding: The Linguistic Analyses of Intercultural Communication. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cogo, A. (2009). Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A study of pragmatic strategies. In Mauranen, Anna and Ranta, Elina, eds., English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 254–273.Google Scholar
Cogo, A. (2010). Strategic use and perceptions of English as a lingua franca. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 46(3), 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cogo, A. (2012). ELF and superdiversity: A case study of ELF multilingual practices from a business context. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(2), 287–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cogo, A. (2015). English as a lingua franca: Descriptions, domains and applications. In Bowles, H. and Cogo, A., eds., International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca: Pedagogical Insights. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Cogo, A. and House, J. (2017). Intercultural pragmatics. In Barron, A., Gu, Y., and Steen, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. London: Routledge, pp. 168–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cogo, A. and House, J. (2018). The pragmatics of ELF. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W., and Dewey, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge, pp. 210–223.Google Scholar
Cogo, A. and Pitzl, M.-L. (2016). Pre-empting and signaling non-understanding in ELF. ELT Journal, 70(3), 339–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dascal, M. (1999). Introduction: Some questions about misunderstanding. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(6), 753–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dascal, M., and Berenstein, I. (1987). Two modes of understanding: Comprehending and grasping. Language and Communication, 7(2), 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On “lingua franca” English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(2), 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, A. (2009). The lingua franca factor. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6, 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. and Varonis, E. (1991). Miscommunication in nonnative speaker discourse. In Coupland, N., Giles, H., and Wiemann, J. M., eds., Miscommunication and Problematic Talk. London: Sage, pp. 121–145.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, J., Reynolds, P., and Dunne, S. (2011). Exhibiting understanding: The body in apprentices. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 489–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, J. (2002). Communicating in English as a lingua franca. In Foster-Cohen, S. H., Ruthenberg, T., and Poschen, M.-L., eds., EUROSLA Yearbook 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 243–261.Google Scholar
House, J., Kasper, G., and Ross, S. (2003). Misunderstanding talk. In House, J., Kasper, G., and Ross, S., eds., Misunderstanding in Social Life: Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk. London: Longman, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Hülmbauer, C. (2009). “We don’t take the right way. We just take the way that we think you will understand”: The shifting relationship between correctness and effectiveness in In, ELF Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E., eds., English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 323–347.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hynninen, N. (2011). The practice of “mediation” in English as a lingua franca interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 965–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jafari, J. (2021). Communicating Strategically in English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus Driven Investigation. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jenks, C. J. (2012). Doing being reprehensive: Some interactional features of English as a lingua franca in a chat room. Applied Linguistics, 33(4), 386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kappa, K. (2016). Exploring solidarity and consensus in English as lingua franca interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 95, 16–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaur, J. (2009). Pre-empting problems of understanding in English as a lingua franca. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E., eds., English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 107–125.Google Scholar
Kaur, J. (2010). Achieving mutual understanding in world Englishes. World Englishes, 29(2), 192–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaur, J. (2011). Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca: Some sources of misunderstanding. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(1), 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaur, J. (2012). Saying it again: Enhancing clarity in English as a lingua franca (ELF) talk through self-repetition. Text and Talk, 32(5), 593–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaur, J. (2017). Ambiguity related misunderstanding and clarity enhancing practices in ELF communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaur, J. (2019). Communication strategies in English as a lingua franca interaction. In Peters, M. A. and Heraud, R., eds., Encyclopedia of Educational Innovation (living ed.). Singapore: Springer, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Kaur, J. (2021). Applying conversation analysis to ELF interaction data. In Murata, K., ed., ELF Research Methods and Approaches to Data and Analyses. London: Routledge, pp. 161–178.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2018). Intercultural pragmatics. In Liedtke, F. and Tuchen, A., eds., Handbuch Pragmatik. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler Verlag, pp. 140–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019). Impoverished pragmatics? The semantics–pragmatics interface from an intercultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(5), 489–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koole, T. and ten Thije, J. D. (2001). The reconstruction of intercultural discourse: Methodological considerations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(4), 571–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koschmann, T. (2011). Understanding understanding in action. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 435–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurhila, S. (2001). Correction in talk between native and non-native speaker. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1083–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtkoppler, J. (2007). “Male. Male.” – “Male?” – “The sex is male.” – The role of repetition in English as a lingua franca conversations. Vienna English Working Papers, 16(1), 39–65. www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/views_0701_pdf (retrieved May 16, 2020).Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (2011). Successful ELF communications and implications for ELT: Sequential analysis of ELF pronunciation negotiation strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (2018a). “Because we are peers, we actually understand”: Third-party participant assistance in English as a lingua franca classroom interactions. TESOL Quarterly, 52(4), 845–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (2018b). Functions of laughter in English-as-a-lingua-franca classrooms: A multimodal ensemble of verbal and non-verbal interactional resources at miscommunication moments. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 7(2), 229–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2006). Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177, 123–150.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2007). Hybrid voices: English as the lingua franca of academics. In Flottum, K., ed., Language and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 243–259.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2018). Conceptualising ELF. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W., and Dewey, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge, pp. 7–24.Google Scholar
Meierkord, C. (1998). Lingua franca English: Characteristics of successful non-native-/non-native-speaker discourse. Erfurt Electronic Studies in English, 7, 98. http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/edoc/ia/eese/eese.html (retrieved July 21, 2020)Google Scholar
Meierkord, C. (2000). Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction: An analysis of non-native/non-native small talk conversations in English. Linguistik Online, 5 (1),00. http://linguistik-online.com (accessed July 21, 2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2011). Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 542–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mustajoki, A. (2017). Why is miscommunication more common in everyday life than in lingua franca conversation? In Kecskes, I and Assimakopoulos, S, eds., Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piantadosi, S., Tilly, H., and Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122, 280–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pietikäinen, K. (2018a). Misunderstanding and ensuring understanding in private ELF talk. Applied Linguistics, 39(2), 188–212.Google Scholar
Pietikäinen, K. (2018b). Silence that speaks: The local inferences of withholding a response in intercultural couples’ conflicts. Journal of Pragmatics, 129, 76–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitzl, M-L. (2005). Non-understanding in English as a lingua franca: Examples from a business context. Vienna English Working Papers, 14, 50–71. http://anglistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/views_0802.pdf (retrieved May 12, 2020)Google Scholar
Pötzl, U. and Seidlhofer, B. (2006). In and on their own terms: The “habitat” factor in English as a lingua franca interactions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177, 151–176.Google Scholar
Robles, J. S. (2017). Misunderstanding as a resource in interaction. Pragmatics, 27(1), 57–86.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samovar, L. A. and Porter, R. E. (1991). Communication between Cultures. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Sarangi, S. (1994). Intercultural or not? Beyond celebration of cultural differences in miscommunication analysis. Pragmatics, 4(3), 409–427.Google Scholar
Sato, T., Yujobo, Y. J., Okada, T., and Ogane, E. (2019). Communication strategies employed by low-proficiency users: Possibilities for ELF-informed pedagogy. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 8(1), 9–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1987). Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics, 25, 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural Communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. and Ishihara, N. (2018). The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca: Research and pedagogy in the era of globalization. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 80–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, T. J. (1986). Do you understand? Criteria of understanding in verbal interaction. Language and Communication, 6(3), 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ten Thije, J. D. (2006). Beyond misunderstanding. Introduction. In Buhrig, K, and ten Thije, J. D, eds., Beyond Misunderstanding. The Linguistic Analyses of Intercultural Communication. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1994). Understanding misunderstanding. In Jamieson, D., ed., Language, Mind and Art. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vettorel, P. (2018). ELF and communication strategies: Are they taken into account in ELT materials? RELC Journal, 49(1), 58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigand, E. (1999). Misunderstanding: The standard case. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 763–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: A Comparative and Critical Introduction. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaefferer, D. (1977). Understanding misunderstanding: A proposal for an explanation of reading choices. Journal of Pragmatics, 1(4), 329–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Baker, W. (2015). Culture and Identity through English as a Lingua Franca: Rethinking Concepts and Goals in Intercultural Communication. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, W. (2018). English as a lingua franca and intercultural communication. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W., and Dewey, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge, pp. 25–36.Google Scholar
Black, M. (1993). More about metaphor. In Ortony, A., ed., Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busch, B. (2017). Expanding the notion of the linguistic repertoire: On the concept of Spracherleben – the lived experience of language. Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 340–358.Google Scholar
Cameron, L. (1999a). Identifying and describing metaphor in spoken discourse. In Cameron, L. and Low, G. D., eds., Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 105–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L. (1999b). Operationalising “metaphor” for applied linguistic research. In Cameron, L. and Low, G. D., eds., Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. Milton Park: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. (2004). Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk. Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cogo, A. (2010). Strategic use and perceptions of English as a lingua franca. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 46(3), 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cogo, A. (2018). ELF and multilingualism. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W., and Dewey, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge, pp. 357–368.Google Scholar
Cogo, A. (2021). ELF and translanguaging: Covert and overt resources in a transnational workplace. In Murata, K., ed., ELF Research Methods and Approaches to Data and Analyses: Theoretical and Methodological Underpinnings. London: Routledge, pp. 38–54.Google Scholar
Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2006). Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic motives to lexico-grammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 59–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2012). Analyzing English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-Driven Investigation. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Cowie, A. P. (ed.) (1998). Phraseology. Theory, Analysis, and Applications. Oxford: Claredon.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In Sternberg, R., ed., Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 313–335.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. (2015). Pragmatics: A Resource Book for Students, 3rd ed. (Routledge English Language Introductions). Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar
ELFA 2008. The Corpus of English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings. Director: Anna Mauranen. www.helsinki.fi/elfa.Google Scholar
Erman, B. and Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1), 29–62.Google Scholar
Firth, A. (2009). The lingua franca factor. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franceschi, V. (2013). Figurative language and ELF: Idiomaticity in cross-cultural interaction in university settings. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(1), 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. and Meunier, F. (eds.) (2008). Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, L. and Bauer, L. (2004). Criteria for re-defining idioms: Are we barking up the wrong tree? Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 38–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hanks, P. (2006). Metaphoricity is gradable. In Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S. T., eds., Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 17–35.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Kalocsai, K. (2014). Communities of Practice and English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kaur, J. (2017). Ambiguity related misunderstanding and clarity enhancing practices in ELF communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2007). Formulaic language in Franca, English Lingua. In Kecskes, I. and Horn, L. R., eds., Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 191–219.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019). English as a Lingua Franca: The Pragmatic Perspective. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimura, D. and Canagarajah, S. (2018). Translingual practice and ELF. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W., and Dewey, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge, pp. 295–308.Google Scholar
Langlotz, A. (2006). Idiomatic Creativity: A Cognitive-Linguistic Model of Idiom-Representation and Idiom-Variation in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Lockdown.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lockdown (retrieved November 26, 2020).Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2004). Ways of “doing being plurilingual” in international work meetings. In Gardner, R. and Wagner, J., eds., Second Language Conversations. London: Continuum, pp. 18–39.Google Scholar
Moon, R. (1998). Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-Based Approach. Oxford: Claredon Press.Google Scholar
Mortensen, J. (2017). Transient multilingual communities as a field of investigation: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 27(3), 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, J. (2020). Lingua franca scenarios. In Tusting, K., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Ethnography. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 299–311.Google Scholar
Musolff, A., MacArthur, F., and Pagani, G. (eds.) (2015). Metaphor and Intercultural Communication. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2009). “We should not wake up any dogs”: Idiom and metaphor in ELF. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E., eds., English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 299–322.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2010). English as a Lingua Franca in International Business: Resolving Miscommunication and Reaching Shared Understanding. Saarbrücken: VDM.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2012). Creativity meets convention: Idiom variation and re-metaphorization in ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), 27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2013). Creativity in language use. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics: 2013 Installment. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2016). World Englishes and creative idioms in English as a lingua franca. World Englishes, 35(2), 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2017). Communicative “success,” creativity and the need for de-mystifying L1 use: Some thoughts on ELF and ELT. Lingue e Linguaggi, 24, 37–46.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2018a). Creativity in English as a Lingua Franca: Idiom and Metaphor. Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2018b). Transient International Groups (TIGs): Exploring the group and development dimension of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 7(1), 25–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2019). Investigating Communities of Practices (CoPs) and Transient International Groups (TIGs) in BELF contexts. Iperstoria, 13(Spring/Summer), 5–14.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2021). Tracing the emergence of situational multilingual practices in a BELF meeting: Micro-diachronic analysis and implications of corpus design. In Murata, K., ed., ELF Research Methods and Approaches to Data and Analyses: Theoretical and Methodological Underpinnings. London: Routledge, pp. 97–125.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2022). Multilingual creativity and emerging norms in interaction: Towards a methodology for micro-diachronic analysis. In Mortensen, J. and Kraft, K., eds., Norms and the Study of Language in Social Life. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
“Quagmire.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quagmire (retrieved on October 30, 2020).Google Scholar
Prodromou, L. (2008). English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-based Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2009). Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a Lingua Franca. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. and Widdowson, H. G. (2007). Idiomatic variation and change in English: The idiom principle and its realizations. In Smit, U., Dollinger, S., Hüttner, J., Kaltenböck, G., and Lutzky, U., eds., Tracing English through Time: Explorations in Language Variation (Festschrift for Herbert Schendl, Austrian Studies in English vol. 95). Vienna: Braumüller, pp. 359–374.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skandera, P. (ed.) (2007). Phraseology and Culture in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, M. (2012). ELF and EFL: Are they really different? Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(2), 379–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vettorel, P. (2014). English as a Lingua Franca in Wider Networking: Blogging Practices. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vetchinnikova, S. (2019). Phraseology and the Advanced Language Learner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VOICE. (2013). The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version 2.0 online and version 2.0 XML). https://voice.acdh.oeaw.ac.at (retrieved on December 21, 2020).Google Scholar
Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied linguistics, 39(1), 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1996). Linguistics (Oxford Introductions to Language Study). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (2004). Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Malden: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (2008). Language creativity and the poetic function. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 503–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, H. (2015). ELF and the pragmatics of language variation. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(2), 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, H. (2011). Introduction: Themes and issues in the study of language and intercultural communication. In Zhu, H, ed., The Language and Intercultural Communication Reader. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Zhu, H. (2015). Negotiation as the way of engagement in intercultural and lingua franca communication: Frames of reference and interculturality. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(1), 63–90.Google Scholar
References
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beger, A. (2011). Deliberate metaphors? An exploration of the choice and functions of metaphors in US-American College lectures. Metaphorik.de, 20, 39–60.Google Scholar
Beger, A. (2016). Different functions of (deliberate) metaphor in teaching scientific concepts. Metaphorik.de, 26, 57–84.Google Scholar
Birdsell, B. (2017). Creative metaphor production in a first and second language and the role of creativity. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Blasko, D. G. and Connine, C. M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 295–308.Google ScholarPubMed
Boers, F. and Littlemore, J. (2000). Cognitive style variables in participants’ explanations of conceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(3), 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolognesi, M. and Steen, G. (eds.) (2019). Perspectives on Abstract Concepts: From Cognitive Processing to Semantic Representation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowdle, B. F. and Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buccino, G., Binkofski, F., Fink, G. R., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., Seitz, R. J., Zilles, K., Rizzolatti, G., and Freund, H. J. (2001). Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: an fMRI study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 13(2), 400–404.Google Scholar
Cameron, L. and Deignan, A. (2003). Combining large and small corpora to investigate tuning devices around metaphor in spoken discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(3), 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrol, G. and Conklin, K. (2014). Getting your wires crossed: Evidence for fast processing of L1 idioms in an L2. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(4), 784–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrol, G. and Conklin, K. (2017). Cross language lexical priming extends to formulaic units: Evidence from eye-tracking suggests that this idea “has legs.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(2), 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrol, G., Littlemore, J. and Dowens, M. G. (2018). Of false friends and familiar foes: Comparing native and non-native understanding of figurative phrases. Lingua, 204, 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 351–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casasanto, D. (2014). Development of metaphorical thinking: The role of language. In Borkent, M., Hinnell, J., and Dancygier, B., eds., Language and the Creative Mind. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 3–18.Google Scholar
Charteris‐Black, J. (2002). Second language figurative proficiency: A comparative study of Malay and English. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 104–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2012). Forensic deliberations on “purposeful metaphor.” Metaphor and the Social World, 2 (1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. and Musolff, A. (2003). “Battered hero” or “innocent victim”? A comparative study of metaphors for euro trading in British and German financial reporting. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 153–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiappe, D. L. and Kennedy, J. M. (1999). Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similies, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6(4), 668–676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cieślicka, A. (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by L2 speakers. Second Language Research, 22, 115–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cieślicka, A. B. (2015). Idiom acquisition and processing by second/foreign language learners. In Heredia, R. R. and Cieślicka, A. B., eds., Bilingual Figurative Language Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 208–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausner, T. C. and Croft, W. (1997), Productivity and schematicity in metaphors. Cognitive Science, 21, 247–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuccio, V. (2018). Attention to Metaphor: From Neurons to Representations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, C., Reijnierse, W. G., and Willems, R. M. (2018). Eye movements reveal readers’ sensitivity to deliberate metaphors during narrative reading. Scientific Study of Literature, 8 (1), 135–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, S. E. and Feist, M. I. (2014). Individual differences in the interpretation of ambiguous statements about time. Cognitive Linguistics, 25 (1), 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL-1981. Hanshin: Hanshin Publishing, pp. 111–138.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. and Bowdle, B. (2008). Metaphor as structure-mapping. In Gibbs, R. W., Jr., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. and Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52 (1), 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., and Boronat, C. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In Gentner, D., Holyoak, K. J., and Kokinov, B. N., eds., The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 199–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. Jr., (2005). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. Jr., (2017). Metaphor Wars: Conceptual Metaphors in Human Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. (2015). Do pragmatic signals affect conventional metaphor understanding? A failed test of deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R., Jr. (2006), Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language, 21, 434–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. Jr, and Steen, G. (eds.) (1997). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 5th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Amsterdam: Benjamin Publishers.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 919–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gkiouzepas, L. (2013). Is your ad headline high enough? The influence of orientational metaphors on affect and comprehension for print advertisements. The 12th International Conference on Research in Advertising (ICORIA). Zagreb: European Academy of Advertising.Google Scholar
Gkiouzepas, L. (2015). Metaphor-ad layout consistency effects: The moderating role of personality traits. In Advances in Advertising Research, Vol. V. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding Figurative Language. Oxford: Scholarship online.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (2008). How metaphors create categories–quickly. In Gibbs, R. W., Jr., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S. and Haught, C. (2006). On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind and Language, 21(3), 360–378.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. and Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gola, E. and Ervas, F. (eds.) (2016). Metaphor and Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J. E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: primary metaphors and primary stress, PhD dissertation, University of Berkeley. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3g9427m2#page-1.Google Scholar
Hampe, B. (ed.) (2017). Metaphor: Embodied Cognition and Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., and Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 22(2), 301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jankowiak, K., Rataj, K., and Naskręcki, R. (2017). To electrify bilingualism: Electrophysiological insights into bilingual metaphor comprehension. PloS one, 12(4), e0175578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, L. L. and Estes, Z. (2005). Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 110–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, L. L. and Estes, Z. (2006). Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, J. (2021). Populist discourse and active metaphors in the 2016 US presidential elections. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 499–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2016). Deliberate creativity and formulaic language use. In Allan, K., Capone, A., Kecskes, I., eds., Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use: Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy and Psychology. Berlin: Springer, pp. 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2017). Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 321–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krennmayr, T. (2011). Metaphors in Newspapers (vol. 276). Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Landau, M. J., Meier, B. P., and Keefer, L. A. (2010). A metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1045–1067.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landau, M. J., Sullivan, D., and Greenberg, J. (2009). Evidence that self-relevant motives and metaphoric framing interact to influence political and social attitudes. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1421–1427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, E. H. and Schnall, S. (2014). The influence of social power on weight perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1719–1725.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, H. and Cao, Y. (2016). Who’s holding the moral high ground: Religiosity and the vertical conception of morality. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 178–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2001). Metaphor as a source of misunderstanding for overseas students in academic lectures. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3), 333–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2019). Metaphors in the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. and Low, G. (2006). Figurative Thinking and Foreign Language Learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J., Chen, P., Barnden, J., and Koester, A. (2011). Difficulties in metaphor comprehension faced by international students whose first language is not English. Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 208–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacArthur, F. (2016). Overt and covert uses of metaphor in the academic mentoring in English of Spanish undergraduate students at five European universities. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 14(1), 23–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mashal, N., Borodkin, K., Maliniak, O., and Faust, M. (2015). Hemispheric involvement in native and non-native comprehension of conventional metaphors. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 35, 96–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McRae, K., Cree, G., Seidenberg, M., and McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and 44 on-living things. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 547–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, B., Selbom, M., and Wygant, D. B. (2007). Failing to take the moral high ground: Psychopathy and the vertical representation of morality. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(4), 757–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ng, C. J. W. and Koller, V. (2013). Deliberate conventional metaphor in images: The case of corporate branding discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(3), 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Reilly, D. and Marsden, E. (2021). Eliciting and measuring L2 metaphoric competence: Three decades on from Low (1988). Applied Linguistics, 42(1), 24–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasma, T. (2011). Metaphor and Register Variation: The Personalization of Dutch News Discourse. Oisterwijk: Box Press.Google Scholar
Pecher, D. (2018). Curb your embodiment. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10, 501–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pecher, D. and Zwaan, R. A. (eds.) (2005). Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez-Sobrino, P., Littlemore, J., and Houghton, D. (2018). The role of figurative complexity in the comprehension and appreciation of advertisements. Applied Linguistics, 40(6), 957–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrez, J. and Reuchamps, M. (2014). Deliberate metaphors in political discourse: The case of citizen discourse. Metaphorik.de, 25, 7–41.Google Scholar
Phillips, G. (2012). Locating metaphor candidates in specialized corpora using raw frequency and keyword lists. In MacArthur, F., Luis Oncins-Martínez, J., Sánchez-García, M., and Piquer-Píriz, A. M., eds., Metaphor in Use: Context, Culture, and Communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishers, pp. 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reijnierse, G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., and Steen, G. (2019). Metaphor in communication: The distribution of potentially deliberate metaphor across register and word class. Corpora, 14(3), 301–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., and Steen, G. J. (2018). DMIP: A method for identifying potentially deliberate metaphor in language use. Corpus Pragmatics, 2(2), 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semino, E. and Steen, G. J. (2008). Metaphor in literature. In Gibbs, R. W., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 232–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., and Schmitt, N. (2011). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research, 27, 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphors. In Gibbs, R., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 84–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2009). From linguistic form to conceptual structure in five steps: Analyzing metaphor in poetry. In Brône, G. and Vandaele, J., eds., Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains and Gaps. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 197–226.Google Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor: now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 26–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2013). Deliberate metaphor affords conscious metaphorical cognition. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1–2), 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2015). Developing, testing and interpreting deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2016). Mixed metaphor is a question of deliberateness. In Gibbs, R., ed., Mixing Metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 113–132.Google Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2017). Attention to metaphor: Where embodied cognition and social interaction can meet, but may not often do so. In Hampe, B., ed., Metaphor: Embodied Cognition and Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A., Herrmann, B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., and Pasma, T (2010). A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and Constructions in Metaphoric Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tay, D. (2013). Metaphor in Psychotherapy: A Descriptive and Prescriptive Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tendahl, M. and Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2008). Complementary perspectives on metaphor: cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(11), 1823–1864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H. and Durgin, F. H. (2011). Metaphor aptness and conventionality: A processing fluency account. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(3), 206–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vivas, L., Montefinese, M., Bolognesi, M., and Vivas, G. (2020). Core features: Measures and characterization for different languages. Cognitive Processing, 21(4), 651–667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wee, L. (2005). Constructing the source: Metaphor as a discourse strategy. Discourse Studies, 7(3), 363–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werkmann Horvat, A., Bolognesi, M., Althaus, N., and Kohl, K. (in prep.). Attention to the source domain of linguistic, conventional metaphorical expressions: Evidence from an eye-tracking study.Google Scholar
Werkmann Horvat, A., Bolognesi, M. and Kohl, K. (2021a). Creativity is a toaster: Experimental evidence on how monolinguals vs. multilinguals process novel metaphors. Applied Linguistics, 42(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werkmann Horvat, A., Bolognesi, M., and Kohl, K. (2021b). Demolishing walls and myths: On the status of conventional metaphorical meaning in the L2 lexicon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J. (2012). Cognitive Semiotics: An emerging field for the transdisciplinary study of meaning. Public Journal of Semiotics, 4(1), 2–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Barr, D. J. and Keysar, B. (2005). Making sense of how we make sense: The paradox of egocentrism in language use. In Colston, Herbert L. and Katz, Albert N., eds., Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 21–42.Google Scholar
Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S. (2009). The Lexical Constructional Model: Genesis, strengths and challenges. In Butler, Christopher S. and Arista, Javier Martín, eds., Deconstructing Constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 117–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. S. (2013). Constructions in the lexical constructional model. In Nolan, Brian and Diedrichsen, Elke, eds., Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 271–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Li, Charles N., ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 25–55.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (2015). Common ground. In MacWhinney, Brian and O’Grady, William, eds., The Handbook of Language Emergence. Oxford: Wiley and Sons, pp. 328–353.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge. In Joshi, Aravind K., Webber, Bonnie L., and Sag, Ivan A., eds., Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 10–63.Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. (2005). Social and cultural influences on figurative and indirect language. In Colston, Herbert L. and Katz, Albert N., eds., Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 99–130.Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. (2008). A new look at common ground: Memory, egocentrism, and joint meaning. In Kecskes, Istvan and Mey, Jacob L., eds., Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 151–187.Google Scholar
Conte, R. (2000). Memes through (social) minds. In Aunger, Robert, ed., Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 83–120.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1981). Conversational Routines: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diedrichsen, E. (2013a). Constructions as memes: Interactional function as cultural convention beyond the words. In Liedtke, Frank and Schulze, Cornelia, eds., Beyond Words. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diedrichsen, E. (2013b). From idioms to sentence structures and beyond: The theoretical scope of the concept “construction.” In Nolan, Brian and Diedrichsen, Elke, eds., Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in Grammars. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 295–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diedrichsen, E. (2020a). On the interaction of core and emergent common ground in Internet memes. Internet Pragmatics, 3(2), 223–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diedrichsen, E. (2020b). Linguistic expressions as cultural units: How a cultural approach to language can facilitate the description of modern means of communication and expression. International Journal of Language and Culture, 7(1), 121–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diedrichsen, E. (2022). Internet Memes – Funktionen und Motivationen. To appear in Lars Bülow, Konstanze Marx, Simon Meier-Vieracker and Robert Mroczynski (eds.), Digitale Pragmatik (Digitale Linguistik). Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (1985). Competing motivations. In Haiman, John, ed., Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 343–365.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 63(4), 805–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dynel, M. (2016). “I has seen image macros!” Advice animal memes as visual-verbal jokes. International Journal of Communication, 10, 660–688.Google Scholar
Eco, U. (1976). A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington/London: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmonds, B. (2005). The revealed poverty of the gene-meme analogy: Why memetics per se has failed to produce substantive results. Journal of Memetics: Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission, 9(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2008). Common ground as a resource for social affiliation. In Kecskes, Istvan and Mey, Jacob, eds., Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 223–254.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. and Fischer, K. (eds.) (2007). Lexical Markers of Common Ground. Oxford/Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fretheim, T. and Gundel, J. K. (eds.) (1996). Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Gerrig, R. J. and Horton, W. S. (2005). Contextual expressions and common ground. In Colston, Herbert L. and Katz, Albert N., eds., Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 43–70.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. Jr, W.. and Colston, H. L. (2019). The emergence of common ground. In Giora, Rachel and Haugh, Michael, eds., Doing Pragmatics Interculturally: Cognitive, Philosophical, and Sociopragmatic Perspectives. Berlin/Boston: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 13–29.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row. Repr. (1986), Northeastern University Press edition, York, PA: Maple Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gonzalves-Garcia, F. and Butler, C. S. (2006). Mapping functional-cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 39–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., and Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haftka, B. (1978). Bekanntheit und Neuheit als Kriterium für die Anordnung von Satzgliedern. Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 15, 157–164.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2005). Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery, 3(1). Retrieved from https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/1/xmlpage/1/archive.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1998). Emergent grammar. In Tomasello, Michael, ed., The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Linguistic Structure. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 155–176.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (2004). The Openness of Grammatical Constructions. www.researchgate.net/publication/284173158_The_Openness_of_Grammatical_Constructions (retrieved on September 30, 2020).Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (2011). Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In Auer, Peter and Pfänder, Stefan, eds., Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 22–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (2015). An emergentist approach to grammar. In MacWhinney, Brian and O’Grady, William, eds., The Handbook of Language Emergence. Oxford: Wiley and Sons, pp. 314–327.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, Thomas A., ed., Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 350–377.Google Scholar
Katz, Y. and Shifman, L. (2017). Making sense? The structure and meanings of digital memetic nonsense. Information, Communication and Society, 20(6), 825–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. and Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2010). Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2889–2897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17(2), 331–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Zhang, F. (2013). On the dynamic relations between common ground and presupposition. In Capone, Alessandro, Piparo, Franco Lo, and Carpapezza, Marco, eds., Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 375–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keysar, B. (2008). Egocentric processes in communication and miscommunication. In Kecskes, Istvan and Mey, Jacob L., eds., Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 277–296.Google Scholar
Knobel, M. and Lankshear, C. (2007). Online memes, affinities, and cultural production. In Knobel, Michele and Lankshear, Colin, eds., A New Literacies Sampler. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 199–227.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2006). On the human “Interaction Engine.” In Enfield, Nicholas J. and Levinson, Stephen C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality. Oxford: Berg Publishers, pp. 39–69.Google Scholar
McCulloch, G. (2019). Because Internet: Understanding the New Rules of Language. New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
Milner, R. M. (2012). The world made meme: Discourse and identity in participatory media. PhD. dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Milner, R. M. (2018). The World Made Meme: Public Conversations and Participatory Media (Information Society Series). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miltner, K. (2014). “There’s No Place for Lulz on Lolcats”: The role of genre, gender and group identity in the interpretation and enjoyment of an internet meme. First Monday, 19(8), 135–155.Google Scholar
Nissenbaum, A. and Shifman, L. (2017). Internet memes as contested cultural capital: The case of 4chan’s/b/board. New Media and Society, 19(4), 483–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortaçtepe, D. and Okkalı, S. (2021). Common ground and positioning in teacher-student interactions: Second language socialization in EFL classrooms. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(1),53–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, W. and Milner, R. M. (2017). The Ambivalent Internet: Mischief, Oddity and Antagonism Online. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M. (2017). Creativity, idioms and metaphorical language in ELF. In Jenkins, Jennifer, Baker, Will, and Dewey, Martin, eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, Peter, ed., Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 223–255.Google Scholar
Pullin, P. (2017). Humour in ELF interaction: A powerful, multifunctional resource in relational practice. In Jenkins, Jennifer, Baker, Will, and Dewey, Martin, eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, R. E. (2019). Overcoming differences and achieving common ground: Why speaker and hearer make the effort and how they go about it. In Giora, Rachel and Haugh, Michael, eds., Doing Pragmatics Interculturally: Cognitive, Philosophical, and Sociopragmatic Perspectives. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 31–54.Google Scholar
Sangiamchit, C. (2017). ELF in electronically mediated intercultural communication. In Jenkins, Jennifer, Baker, Will, and Dewey, Martin, eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 345–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, R. M. W., ed., Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian National University, pp. 112–171.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1981). Case marking and the nature of language. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 1, 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. (2000). An objection to the memetic approach to culture. In Aunger, Robert, ed., Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 163–173.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. and Cömert Öztek, P. (1977). Health to our mouths: Formulaic expressions in Turkish and Greek. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 516–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. (2005). Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varis, P. and Blommaert, J. (2015). Conviviality and collectives on social media: Virality, memes, and new social structures. Multilingual Margins, 2(1), 31–45.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1960). Philosophische Untersuchungen. In Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Tractatus logico-philosophicus (=Schriften 1). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. English trans. by G. E. M. Anscombe. Basil Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
Xie, C. and Yus, F. (2018). Introducing internet pragmatics. Internet Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2018a). Identity-related issues in meme communication. Internet Pragmatics, 1(1): 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2018b). Multimodality in memes: A cyberpragmatic approach. In Bou-Franch, Patricia and Blitvich, Pilar Carcés-Conejos, eds., Analyzing Digital Discourse: New Insights and Future Directions. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 105–131.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2019a). A cognitive pragmatics of the phatic internet. In Lachlan Mackenzie, J. and Alba-Juez, Laura, eds., Emotion in Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 161–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2019b). An outline of some future research issues for internet pragmatics. Internet Pragmatics, 2(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Websites
knowyourmeme.com: https://knowyourmeme.com
stayhipp.com: https://stayhipp.com/internet/memes/leonardo-dicaprio-laughing-django-unchained-memes/
(retrieved on October 2, 2020)Google Scholar
References
Aijmer, K. (1985). What happens at the end of our utterances? The use of utterance-final tags introduced by “and” and “or”. In Togeby, O., ed., Papers from the Eighth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Institute for Nordisk Filologi, Københavns Universitet, pp. 366–389.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2002). English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding Pragmatic Markers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E. (2010). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bradac, J. J., Mulac, A., and Thompson, S. A. (1995). Men’s and women’s use of intensifiers and hedges in problem-solving interaction: Molar and molecular analyses. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(2), 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. (2003). The grammar of talk: Spoken English, grammar and the classroom. In New Perspectives on English in the Classroom. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, pp. 5–13.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (1997). Exploring Spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chefneux, G. (2012). Mitigation at work: Functions and lexical realisations. In Măda, S. and Săftoiu, R., eds., Professional Communication across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, W. (2007). The use of vague language across spoken genres in an intercultural Hong Kong corpus. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 161–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, W. and O’Keeffe, A. (2015). Vagueness. In Rühlemann, C. and Aijmer, K., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 360–378.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. and Warren, M. (1999). Facilitating a description of intercultural conversations: The Hong Kong Corpus of Conversational English. ICAME Journal, 23, 5–20.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. and Warren, M. (2001). The use of vague language in intercultural conversations in Hong Kong. English World-Wide, 22(1), 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, W., Greaves, C., and Warren, M. (2008). A Corpus-Driven Study of Discourse Intonation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. In Clark, H. H., ed., Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 107–143.Google Scholar
Cotterill, J. (2007). “I think he was kind of shouting or something”: Uses and abuses of vagueness in the British courtroom. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, A. (2006). A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. and Davy, D. (1979). Advanced Conversational English. London: Longman Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. (2000). Vague language and international students. In Cutting, J., ed., The Grammar of Spoken English and EAP Teaching. Sunderland: University of Sunderland Press, pp. 39–54.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. (2007). Introduction to “vague language explored.” In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drave, N. (2002). Vaguely speaking: A corpus approach to vague language in intercultural conversations. In Peters, P., Collins, P., and Smith, A., eds., Language and Computers: New Frontiers of Corpus Research 16 (Papers from the Twenty-First International Conference of English Language Research and Computerized Corpora). Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 25–40.Google Scholar
Evison, J., McCarthy, M., and O’Keeffe, A. (2007). “Looking out for love and all the rest of it”: Vague category markers as shared social space. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 138–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. (1980). Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 4(4), 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glinert, L. (2010), Apologizing to China: Elastic apologies and the meta-discourse of American diplomats. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(1), 47–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
He, S. (2021). Cognitive metaphor theories in translation studies: Toward a dual-model parametric approach. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(1): 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. (1985). Sex differences and miscommunication: Some data from New Zealand. In Pride, J. B., ed., Cross-Cultural Encounters: Communication and Miscommunication. Melbourne: River Seine, pp. 24–43.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language and Communication, 10(3), 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, G. and Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795–2809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998a). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic meta-discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998b). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Janney, R. (2002). Cotext as context: Vague answers in court. Language and Communication, 22, 457–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H., Smith, S. W., and Lüdge, T. (2003). Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1737–1769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. (2004). Pragmatic aspects of grammatical constructions. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 675–700.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2007). The role of I guess in conversational stance taking. In Englebretson, R., ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 183–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koester, A. (2007). “About twelve thousand or so”: Vagueness in North American and UK offices. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 40–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1997). The Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Metsä-Ketelä, M. (2006). “Words are more or less superfluous”: The case of more or less in academic lingua franca English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 117–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moxey, L. and Sanford, A. (1993). Communicating Quantities: A Psychological Perspective. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mulder, J., Williams, C. P., and Moore, E. (2019). Sort of in Australian English: The elasticity of a pragmatic marker. [Special issue]. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 29(1), 9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumford, S. (2009). An analysis of spoken grammar: The case for production. ELT Journal, 63(2), 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortaçtepe, D. and Okkalı, S. (2021). Common ground and positioning in teacher-student interactions: Second language socialization in EFL classrooms. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(1), 53–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parvaresh, V. (2017a). Panegyrists, vagueness and the pragmeme. In Parvaresh, V. and Capone, A., eds., The Pragmeme of Accommodation: The Case of Interaction around the Event of Death. Cham: Springer, pp. 61–81.Google Scholar
Parvaresh, V. (2017b). Book review: Grace Q Zhang, Elastic Language: How and Why We Stretch Our Words. Discourse Studies, 19 (1), 115–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parvaresh, V. (2018). “We are going to do a lot of things for college tuition”: Vague language in the 2016 US presidential debates. Corpus Pragmatics, 2(2), 167–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parvaresh, V. and Tayebi, T. (2014). Vaguely speaking in Persian. Discourse Processes, 51(7), 565–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parvaresh, V. and Zhang, G. (2019). Vagueness and elasticity of “sort of” in TV discussion discourse in the Asian Pacific (Special issue). Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 29(1), 1–132.