Arundale, Robert. B. 1999. An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative politeness theory. Pragmatics 9(1): 119–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arundale, Robert. B. 2006. Face as relational and interactional: a communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 2(2): 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arundale, Robert. B. 2008. Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics 5(2): 231–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arundale, Robert. B. 2009. Face as emergent in interpersonal communication: an alternative to Goffman. In: Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Haugh, M. (eds.) Face, Communication and Social Interaction. London: Equinox, 33–54.Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert. B. 2010a. Relating. In: Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L. (eds.) Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 137–66.Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert. B. 2010b. Constituting face in conversation: face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics 42(8): 2078–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arundale, Robert. B. 2012. On understandings of communication: a response to Wedgwood. Intercultural Pragmatics 9(2): 137–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arundale, Robert. B. 2013. Conceptualising ‘interaction’ in interpersonal pragmatics: implications for understanding and research, Journal of Pragmatics (forthcoming).

Arundale, Robert B. and Good, David A. 2002. Boundaries and sequences in studying conversation. In: Fetzer, A. and Meierkord, C. (eds.) Rethinking Sequentiality: Linguistics Meets Conversational Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 121–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Augoustinos, Martha, Walker, Iain and Donaghue, Ngaire 2006. Social Cognition: An Integrated Introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca and Haugh, Michael (eds.) 2009. Face, Communication and Social Interaction. London: Equinox.

Bassili, John N. and Brown, Rick D. 2005. Implicit and explicit attitudes: research, challenges, and theory. In: Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T. and Zanna, M. P. (eds.) The Handbook of Attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 543–74.Google Scholar

Bax, Marcel 1999. Ritual levelling. The balance between the eristic and the co-n-t-rac-tual motive in hostile verbal encounters in medieval romance and early mo-dern drama. In: Jucker, A. H., Fritz, G., and Lebsanft, F. (eds.) Historical Dialogue Analysis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 35–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bax, Marcel 2010a. Rituals. In: Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. (eds.) Handbook of Pragmatics, Vol. 8: Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 483–519.Google Scholar

Bax, Marcel 2010b. Epistolary presentation rituals. Face-work, politeness, and ritual display in early modern Dutch letter-writing. In: Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. Z. (eds.) Historical (Im)politeness. Bern: Peter Lang, 37–85.Google Scholar

Baxter, Judith 2004. Positioning Gender and Discourse: A Feminist Methodology. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Bayraktaroğlu, Arin and Sifianou, Maria 2012. The iron first in the velvet glove: how politeness can contribute to impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research 8(2): 143–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bell, Catherine 1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Blitvich, Garcés-Conejos Pilar 2009. Impoliteness and identity in the American news media: the culture wars. Journal of Politeness Research 5: 273–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blitvich, Garcés-Conejos Pilar 2010. Introduction: the status-quo and quo vadis of impoliteness. Intercultural Pragmatics 7(4): 535–59.Google Scholar

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana 1987. Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different?Journal of Pragmatics 11: 131–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane and Kasper, Gabriele (eds.) 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bodor, Péter and Barcza, Virág 2011. Érzelmi fejlődés és a kicsinyítő képzők elsajátítása [Emotional development and the acquisition of diminuatives]. Pszichológia 31(3): 195–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bolívar, Adriana 2008. Perceptions of (im)politeness in Venezuelan Spanish: the role of evaluation in interaction. Pragmatics 18(4): 605–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonnefon, Jean-François and Villejoubert, Gaëlle 2006. Tactful or doubtful? Expectations of politeness explain the severity bias in the interpretation of probability phrases. Psychological Science 17(9): 747–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bousfield, Derek 2010. Issues in impoliteness research. In: Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L. (eds.) Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 101–34.Google Scholar

Boxer, Diana 1993. Speech behavior and social distance: the case of indirect complaints. Journal of Pragmatics 19(2): 103–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brody, Elaine M. 1970. The etiquette of filial behaviour. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development 1(1): 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, Penelope 2001. Politeness and language. In: Smelser, N. J. and Baltes, P. B. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Oxford: Elsevier Sciences, 11620–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. 1978. Universals in language usage: polite-ness phenomena. In: E. Goody (ed.)Questions and Politeness. Cambridge University Press, 56–311.Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, Roger and Gilman, Albert 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: Sebeok, T. A. (ed.) Style in Language. New York: MIT, 253–76.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, Mary 1999. ‘Why be normal?’: language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society 28: 203–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Butler, Judith 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Chang, Wei-Lin Melody and Haugh, Michael 2011a. Evaluations of im/politeness of an intercultural apology. Intercultural Pragmatics 8(3): 411–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chang, Wei-Lin Melody and Haugh, Michael 2011b. Strategic embarrasment and face threatening in business interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 43(12): 2948–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, Noam 1957. Syntactic Structure. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Clift, Rebecca 1999. Irony in conversation. Language in Society 28: 523–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clift, Rebecca 2001. Meaning in interaction: the case of ‘actually’. Language 77(2): 245–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cook, Haruko Minagishi 2006. Japanese politeness as an interactional achievement: academic consultation sessions in Japanese universities. Introduction. G. Kasper (ed.), 260–91.

Copestake, Anne and Terkourafi, Marina 2010. Conventional speech act formulae: from corpus findings to formalization. In: Kühnlein, P., Benz, A., and Sidner, C. (eds.) Constraints in Discourse 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 125–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth 2012. On affectivity and preference in responses to rejection. Text and Talk 32(4): 453–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crystal, David 2003. English as a Global Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan 2005. Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 35–72.Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan 2008. In: Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. (eds.) Impoliteness in Language. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 17–44.Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan 2009a. Historical sociopragmatics: an introduction. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 10(2): 153–60.Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan 2009b. The metalanguage of impoliteness: explorations in the Oxford English Corpus. In: Baker, P. (ed.) Contemporary Corpus Linguistics. London: Continuum, 64–6.Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan 2011a. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan 2011b. Politeness and impoliteness. In: Aijmer, K. and Andersen, G. (eds.) Sociopragmatics, Vol. 5: Handbooks of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 391–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan 2011c. ‘It's not what you said, it's how you said it!’ Prosody and impoliteness. In: Linguistic Politeness Research Group (eds.) Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 57–83.Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan 2012. (Im)politeness: three issues. Journal of Pragmatics 44(9): 1128–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan and Demmen, Jane 2011. Nineteenth-century English politeness: negative politeness, conventional indirect requests and the rise of the individual self. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 12(1/2): 49–81.Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan and Haugh, Michael forthcoming. Pragmatics and the English Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming.CrossRef

Culpeper, Jonathan and Kytö, Merja 2000. Data in historical pragmatics: spoken interaction (re)case as writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 4(2): 175–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan and Kytö, Merja 2010. Speech in Writing: Explorations in Early Modern English Dialogues. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Curl, Traci and Drew, Paul 2008. Contingency and action: a comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(2): 129–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davies, Bethan 2011. Discursive histories, personalist ideology and judging intent: analysing the metalinguistic discussion of Tony Blair's ‘slave trade apology’. In: Linguistic Politeness Research Group (ed.) Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 189–219.Google Scholar

Davies, Bethan, Merrison, Andrew John and Haugh, Michael 2011. Epilogue. In: Davies, B. L., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A. J. (eds.) Situated Politeness. London: Continuum, 270–7.Google Scholar

de Berg, Henk 1995. A systems theoretical perspective on communication. Poetics Today 16(4): 709–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Zarobe, Leyre Ruiz and Ruiz de Zarobe, Yolanda 2012. Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Deutschmann, Mats 2003. Apologising in British English. Umeå, Sweden: Umeå University.Google Scholar

Drew, Paul 1997. ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of trouble in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28(1): 69–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drew, Paul 1998. Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction 31(3–4): 295–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Durkheim, Émile 2001 [1915]. Cosman, Carol trans. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dury, Richard 2008. Handwriting and the linguistic study of letters. In: Dossena, M. and Tieken-Boon Van Ostade, I. (eds.) Studies in Late Modern English Correspondence: Methodology and Data. Berne: Peter Lang, 113–33.Google Scholar

Dynel, Marta. 2011. ‘You talking to me?’ The viewer as a ratified listener to film discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 43(6): 1628–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eelen, Gino 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar

Fienemann, Jutta and Rehbein, Jochen 2004. Introductions: being polite in multilingual settings. In: House, J. and Rehbein, J. (eds.) Multilingual Communication. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 223–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Foley, William 1997. Anthropological Linguistics: An Introduction. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Foucault, Michel 1966 [1970] Les mots et les choses. Une archéologie des sciences humaines. [The Order of Things: An Archaeology of Human Sciences]. Gallimard: Paris (English translation: New York, NY: Pantheon).Google Scholar

Foucault, Michel 1973. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce 1990. Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 219–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fukushima, Saeko 2004. Evaluation of politeness: the case of attentiveness. Multilingua 23: 365–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fukushima, Saeko 2011. A cross-generational and cross-cultural study on demonstration of attentiveness. Pragmatics 21: 549–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gagné, Nana Okura 2010. Reexamining the notion of negative face in the Japanese Socio linguistic politeness of request. Language and Communication 30(2): 123–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garfinkel, Harold 1964. Studies in the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social Problems 11(3): 225–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garfinkel, Harold 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Geyer, Naomi 2008. Discourse and Politeness: Ambivalent Face in Japanese. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Goddard, Cliff 2006. Ethnopragmatics: a new paradigm. In: Goddard, C. (ed.) Ethnopragmatics. Understanding Discourse in Cultural Context, 1–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goddard, Cliff 2009. Not taking yourself too seriously in Australian English: semantic explications, cultural scripts, corpus evidence. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(1): 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goffman, Erving 1964. The neglected situation. In: Gumperz, J. J. and Hymes, D. (eds.) Ethnography of Communication, American Anthropologist 66(6): 133–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goffman, Erving 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving 1979. Footing. Semiotica 25(1): 1–29.CrossRef

Goffman, Erving 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Goleman, Daniel 2011. Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships. London: Random House.Google Scholar

Graham, Sage Lambert 2007. Disagreeing to agree: conflict, (im)politeness, and identity in a computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics 39(4): 742–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grainger, Karen 2011. ‘First-order’ and ‘second-order’ politeness: institutional and intercultural contexts. In: Linguistic Politeness Research Group (ed.) Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 167–88.Google Scholar

Grice, Herbert Paul 1957. Meaning. The Philosophical Review 66(3): 377–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grice, Herbert Paul 1989[1975]. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Gu, Yueguo 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14(2): 237–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, Sandra 2011. The limits of politeness re-visited: courtroom discourse as a case in point. In: Linguistic Politeness Research Group (ed.) Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 85–108.Google Scholar

Harris, Sandra 2003. Anticipated versus inferred politeness. Multilingua 22(4): 397–413.Google Scholar

Harris, Sandra 2004. Revisiting the conceptualisation of politeness in English and Japanese. Multilingua 23 (1/2): 85–109.Google Scholar

Harris, Sandra 2007a. The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation, Journal of Pragmatics 39(1): 84–110.Google Scholar

Harris, Sandra 2007b. Emic conceptualisations of (im)politeness and face in Japanese: implications for the discursive negotiation of second language learner identities, Journal of Pragmatics 39(4): 657–80.Google Scholar

Harris, Sandra 2007c. The discursive challenge to politeness research: an interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research 3(2): 295–317.Google Scholar

Harris, Sandra 2008. Intention and diverging interpretings of implicature in the uncovered meat sermon. Intercultural Pragmatics 5(2): 201–29.Google Scholar

Harris, Sandra 2010a. When is an email really offensive?: Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research 6(1): 7–31.Google Scholar

Harris, Sandra 2010b. Intercultural (im)politeness and the micro–macro issue. In: Trosborg, A. (ed.) Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 139–66.Google Scholar

Harris, Sandra 2010c. Respect and deference. In: Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L. (eds.) Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 271–88.Google Scholar

Harris, Sandra 2011. Humour, face and im/politeness in getting acquainted. In: Davies, B., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A. (eds.) Situated Politeness. London: Continuum, 165–84.Google Scholar

Harris, Sandra 2012a. Epilogue: the first–second order distinction in face and politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research 8(1): 111–34.Google Scholar

Harris, Sandra 2012b. On understandings of intention: a response to Wedgwood. Intercultural Pragmatics 9(2): 161–94.Google Scholar

Harris, Sandra 2013a. Disentangling face, facework and politeness. Sociocultural Pragmatics 1(1): 46–73.Google Scholar

Harris, Sandra 2013b. Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 48(1): 41–56.Google Scholar

Harris, Sandra 2013c. Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics. Special issue on ‘Interpersonal pragmatics’, forthcoming.Google Scholar

Harris, Sandra 2013d. Im/politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, forthcoming.Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael and Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca (eds.) 2010. Face in interaction. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8): 2073–171.CrossRef

Haugh, Michael, Melody Chang, Wei-Lin and Kádár, Dániel Z. 2013. ‘Doing deference’: identities and relational practices in Chinese online discussion boards. Language@Internet 9.Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael, Davies, Bethan and Merrison, Andrew 2011. Situating politeness. In: Davies, B., Haugh, M., and Merrison, A. (eds.) Situated Politeness. London: Continuum, 1–23.Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael and Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2012. Speaker intentions and intentionality. In: Jaszczolt, K. M. and Allan, K. (eds.) Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, 87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haugh, Michael and Kádár, Dániel Z. forthcoming. Politeness in Chinese and Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, forthcoming.

Haugh, Michael, Kádár, Dániel Z. and Mills, Sara 2013. Interpersonal pragmatics: an introduction. In: Haugh, M., Kádár, D. Z. and Mills, S. (eds.) Journal of Pragmatics: Special Issue – Interpersonal Pragmatics, forthcoming.Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael and Obana, Yasuko 2011. Politeness in Japan. In: Kádár, D. Z. and Mills, S. (eds.) Politeness in East Asia. Cambridge University Press, 147–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haugh, Michael and Schneider, Klaus P. (eds.) 2012. Im/politeness across Englishes. Journal of Pragmatics 44(9): 1017–1133.CrossRef

He, Yun 2012. Different generations, different face? A discursive approach to naturally occurring compliment responses in Chinese. Journal of Politeness Research 8(1): 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heidegger, Martin 1991[1927]. Being and Time. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Heritage, John 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Heritage, John 1988. Explanations as accounts: a conversation analytic perspective. In: Antaki, C. (ed.) Analyzing Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods. London: Sage, 127–44.Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet, Marra, Meredith and Schnurr, Stephanie 2008. Impoliteness and ethnicity: Māori and Pākehā discourse in New Zealand workplaces. Journal of Politeness Research 4(2): 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holmes, Janet, Meredith, Marra and Vine, Bernadette 2012. Politeness and impoliteness in ethnic varieties of New Zealand English. Journal of Pragmatics 44(9): 1063–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holtgraves, Thomas M. 1998. Interpreting indirect replies. Cognitive Psychology 37: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Holtgraves, Thomas M. 2000. Preference organization and reply comprehension. Discourse Processes 30: 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holtgraves, Thomas M. 2005. Social psychology, cognitive psychology, and linguistic politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

House, Juliane 2008. (Im)politeness in English as lingua franca discourse. In: Locher, M. and Strässler, J. (eds.) Standards and Norms in the English Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 351–66.Google Scholar

Hutchby, Ian 2008. Participants’ orientations to interruptions, rudeness and other impolite acts in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Politeness Research, Special Issue: ‘Impoliteness and Rudeness’ 4(2): 221–41.Google Scholar

Ide, Sachiko 1982. Japanese sociolinguistics: politeness and women's language. Lingua 57(2–4): 357–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ide, Sachiko 1989. Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8(2–3): 223–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ide, Sachiko 2005. How and why honorifics can signify dignity and elegance: The indexicality and reflexivity of linguistic rituals. In: Lakoff, R. T. and Ide, S. (eds.) Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ide, Sachiko, Hill, Beverly, Carnes, Yukiko, Ogino, Tsunao and Kawasaki, Akiko 2005[1992]. The concept of politeness: an empirical study of American English and Japanese. In: R. J. Watts, S. Ide and K. Ehlich (eds.) Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory, and Practice, 281–97.

Iggers, Georg G. 2007. Rationality and history.

Inagaki, Noriko 2011. Unpacking the hearer's interpretation of situated politeness. In: Davies, B., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A. J. (eds.) Situated Politeness. London: Continuum, 147–64.Google Scholar

Jacobs, Andreas and Jucker, Andreas H. 1995. The historical perspective in pragmatics. In Jucker, A. H. (ed.) Historical Pragmatics – Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jaworski, Adam, Coupland, Nikolas and Galasiński, Dariusz 2004. Metalanguage: why now? In: Jaworski, A., Coupland, N. and Galasiński, D. (eds.) Metalanguage: Social and Ideological Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. 2010. ‘In curteisie was set ful muchel hir lest’, politeness in Middle English. In: Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. Z. (eds.) Historical (Im)Politeness. Berne: Peter Lang, 175–200.Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. 2012. Positive and negative face as descriptive categories in the history of English. In: Bax, M. and Kádár, D. Z. (eds.) Understanding Historical (Im)Politeness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 178–97.Google Scholar

Kachru, Braj B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle. In: Quirk, R. and Widdowson, H. (eds.) English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures, Cambridge University Press, 11–30.Google Scholar

Kachru, Braj B. 1992. Teaching world Englishes. In: Kachru, B. B., (ed.) The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 355–66.Google Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z. 2007. Terms of (Im)Politeness: On the Communicational Properties of Traditional Chinese (Im)Polite Terms of Address. Budapest: Eotvos Lorand University Press.Google Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z. 2010a. Exploring the historical Chinese denigration/elevation phenomenon. In: Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. Z. (eds.) Historical (Im)Politeness. Berne: Peter Lang, 117–45.Google Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z. 2010b. Historical Chinese Letter Writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z. 2011. A graphic–semiotic analysis of the Chinese multimodal elevation and denigration phenomenonUS–China Foreign Language 9(2): 77–88.Google Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z. 2013. Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z. and Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca 2010. Introduction: politeness research in and across cultures. In: Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Kádár, D. Z. (eds.) Politeness Across Cultures. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1–15.Google Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z. and Culpeper, Jonathan 2010. Historical (im)politeness: an introduction. In: Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. Z. (eds.) Historical (Im)Politeness. Berne: Peter Lang, 9–36.Google Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z., Haugh, Michael and Chang, W. 2013. Aggression and perceived national face threats in Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese CMC discussion boards. Multilingua 32(3): 343–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z. and Mills, Sara 2011. Politeness in East Asia: an introduction. In: Kádár, D. Z. and Mills, S. (eds.) Politeness in East Asia, Cambridge University Press, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z. and Mills, Sara (forthcoming). Bluntness and Yorkshire Identity.

Kádár, Dániel Z. and Pan, Yuling 2011. Politeness in China. In: Kádár, D. Z. and Mills, S. (eds.) Politeness in East Asia, Cambridge University Press, 125–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kasper, Gabriele 1990. Linguistic politeness: current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kasper, Gabriele (ed.) 2006a. Politeness as a discursive phenomenon. Multilingua 25(3).Google Scholar

Kasper, Gabriele 2006b. Introduction. In: G. Kasper (ed.), 243–8.

Kecskes, Istvan 2004. Lexical merging, conceptual blending, cultural crossing. Intercultural Pragmatics 1(1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kienpointner, Manfred 1997. Varieties of rudeness: types and functions of impolite utterances. Functions of Language 4(2): 251–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kohnen, Thomas 2008. Linguistic politeness in Anglo-Saxon England? A study of Old English address terms. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 9(1): 140–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kohnen, Thomas 2012. Understanding Anglo-Saxon ‘politeness’: Directive constraints with ic wille / ic wolde. In: Bax, M. and Kádár, D. Z. (eds.) Understanding Historical (Im)Politeness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 230–54.Google Scholar

Kopytko, Roman 1995. Linguistic politeness strategies in Shakespeare's plays. In: Jucker, A. H. (ed.) Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 515–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koster, Jan 2003. Ritual performance and the politics of identity. On the functions and uses of ritual. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 4: 211–48.Google Scholar

Krippendorff, Klaus 1970. On generating data in communication research. Journal of Communication 20(3): 241–69.Google Scholar

Krippendorff, Klaus 1989. On the ethics of constructing communication. In: Dervin, B., Grossberg, L., O'Keefe, B. J. and Wartella, E. (eds.), Rethinking Communication: Paradigm Issues. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 66–96.Google Scholar

Kuno, Susumu 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, Robin T. 1973. The logic of politeness; or, minding your p's and q's. In: Corum, C., Smith-Stark, T. and Weiser, A. (eds.) Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, 292–305.Google Scholar

Lakoff, Robin T. 1977. What you can do with words: politeness, pragmatics, and performatives. In: Rogers, A., Wall, B. and Murphy, J. P. (eds.) Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions, and Implicatures, Arlington: Center of Applied Linguistics, 79–105.Google Scholar

Lakoff, Robin T. 2005. Civility and its discontents: or, getting in your face. In: Lakoff, R. T. and Ide, S. (eds.) Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langlotz, Andreas 2010. Social cognition. In: Locher, M. A., and Graham, S. L. (eds.) Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 167–202.Google Scholar

Langlotz, Andreas and Locher, Miriam A. 2013. The role of emotions in a discursive approach to relational work. In: M. Haugh, D. Z. Kádár and S. Mills (eds.) Journal of Pragmatics: Special Issue – Interpersonal Pragmatics, forthcoming.

Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Lett, James 1990. Emics and etics: notes on the epistimology of anthropology. In: Headland, T. N., Pike, K. L. and Harris, M. (eds.) Emics and Etics: The Insider/Outsider Debate. Newbury Park: Sage, 127–42.Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Linguistic Politeness Research Group (ed.) 2011. Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Locher, Miriam A. 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Locher, Miriam A. 2006. Polite behaviour within relational work: the discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua 25(3): 249–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Locher, Miriam A. 2010. Introduction: politeness and impoliteness in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Politeness Research 6(1): 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Locher, Miriam A. and Langlotz, Andreas 2008. Relational work: at the intersection of cognition, interaction and emotion. Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée (VALS-ASLA) 88: 165–91.Google Scholar

Locher, Miriam A. and Watts, Richard J. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 9–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Locher, Miriam A. and Watts, Richard J. 2008. Relational work and impoliteness: negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In: Bousfield, D., and Locher, M. A. (eds.) Impoliteness in Language. Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 77–99.Google Scholar

Mao, Luming R. 1994. Beyond politeness theory: ‘face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics 21(5): 451–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Matsui, Tomoko 2001. Kanrensei riron kara mita poraitonesu [Politeness from the Perspective of Relevance Theory]. Gengo 30: 52–9.Google Scholar

Matsumoto, Yoshiko 1989. Politeness and conversational universals – observations from Japanese, Multilingua 8(2/3): 207–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, Laura 2004. You are doing burriko! Censoring/scrutinizing artificers of cute femininity in Japanese. In: Shigeko, O. and Shibamoto-Smith, J. (eds.) Japanese Gender and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People. Oxford University Press, 148–65.Google Scholar

Mills, Sara 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mills, Sara 2009. Impoliteness in a cultural context. Journal of Pragmatics 41(5): 1047–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mills, Sara 2011a. Discursive approaches to politeness and impoliteness. In: Linguistic Politeness Research Group (ed.) Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 19–56.Google Scholar

Mills, Sara 2011b. Communities of practice and politeness. In: Davies, B., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A. (eds.) Situated Politeness. London: Continuum, 73–87.Google Scholar

Mills, Sara and Kádár, Dániel Z. 2011. Culture and politeness. In: Kádár, D. Z. and Mills, S. (eds.) Politeness in East Asia. Cambridge University Press, 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mills, Sara and Mullany, Louise 2011. Language, Gender, and Feminism: Theory, Methodology, and Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Milroy, Lesley and Milroy, James 1992. Social network and social class: toward an integrated sociolinguistic model. Language in Society 21: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu, and Sanna-Kaisa, Tanskanen (eds.) 2007. Letter Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Niedzielski, Nancy and Preston, Dennis 2009. Folk Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nishida, Kitaro 1949. Basho [Place]. In: Nishida Kitaroo Zenshuu 4 [The Collected Works of Kitaro Nishida]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 208–89.Google Scholar

Norris, Sigrid 2004. Analyzing Multimodal Interaction: A Methodological Framework. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, Jim, 2013. Situational transformations: the offensive-izing of an email message and the public-ization of offensiveness. Pragmatics and Society 4(2), forthcoming.Google Scholar

Ohtsuka, Masayuki 2011. On ba (field) theory: ba-oriented language and thought. Paper presented at the 11th Korea–Japan Workshop on Linguistics and Language Processing, Waseda University, Tokyo, 10–11 December.

Okamoto, Shigeko 1999. Situated politeness: manipulating honorific and non-honorific expressions in Japanese conversations. Pragmatics 8(2): 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ong, Walter 1984. Orality, literacy, and medieval textualization. Oral and Written Traditions in the Middle Ages 16(1): 1–12.Google Scholar

Pan, Yuling and Kádár, Dániel Z. 2011. Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Paternoster, Annick 2012. Inappropriate inspectors: impoliteness and overpoliteness in Ian Rankin's and Andrea Camilleri's crime series. Language and Literature 21(3): 311–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pike, Kenneth 1967. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior (2nd edn). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pike, Kenneth 1990. ‘Pike's final response’. In: Headland, T. N., Pike, K. L. and Harris, M. (eds.) Emics and Etics. The Insider/Outsider Debate. Sage, Newbury Park, 184–201.Google Scholar

Pizziconi, Barbara 2007. The lexical mapping of politeness in British English and Japanese. Journal of Politeness Research 3(2): 207–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pizziconi, Barbara 2011. Honorifics: the cultural specificity of a universal mechanism in Japanese. In: Kádár, D. Z. and Mills, S. (eds.) Politeness in East Asia. Cambridge University Press, 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Planchenault, Gaëlle 2010. Virtual community and politeness: the use of female markers of identity and solidarity in a transvestites’ website. Journal of Politeness Research 6(1): 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pomerantz, Anita 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, 57–101.Google Scholar

Potter, Jonathan 1998. Discursive social psychology: from attitudes to evaluative practices. European Review of Social Psychology 9: 233–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Purdy, Charles 2004. Urban Etiquette: Marvelous Manners for the Modern Metropolis. Tulsa, OK: Wildcat Canyon Press.Google Scholar

Rasmussen, Susan J. 1992. Ritual specialists, ambiguity, and power in Tuareg society. Man 27(1): 105–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raymond, Geoffrey 2004. Prompting action: the stand-alone ‘so’ in sequences of talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37(2): 185–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rehbein, Jochen and Fienemann, Jutta 2004. Introductions. In: House, J. and Rehbein, J. (eds.) Multilingual Communication. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 223–78.Google Scholar

Rosenberg, Milton J. 1968. Hedonism, in-authenticity and other goals. In: Ableson, R., Aronson, E., McGuire, W. J., Newcomb, T. M., Rosenberg, M. J. and Tannenbaum, P. H. (eds.), Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company.Google Scholar

Ruhi, Şükriye 2009. A Place for Emotions in Conceptualizing Face and Relational Work. Plenary lecture, International Symposium on Face and Politeness, Griffith University, Brisbane.Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey 1992[1964–72]. Lectures on Conversation, Vols. 1 and 2. Jefferson, G. (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2006. On possibles. Discourse Studies 8(1): 141–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007a. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007b. A tutorial on membership categorisation. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 462–82.Google Scholar

Schermerhorn, John R., Hunt, James G. and Osborn, Richard N. 2011. Organizational Behaviour. New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Schneider, Klaus P. and Barron, Anne 2008. Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties of Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Searle, John 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay on the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Searle, John 1975. Indirect speech acts. In: Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Act. New York: Academic Press, 59–82.Google Scholar

Sell, Roger 1992. Literary texts and diachronic aspects of politeness. In: Watts, R. J., Ide, S. and Erlich, K. (eds.) Politeness in Language. Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 109–29.Google Scholar

Selting, Margaret 1996. Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: the case of so-called ‘astonished’ questions in repair initation. In: Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Selting, M. (eds.) Prosody in Conversation. Cambridge University Press, 231–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Selting, Margaret 2009. Communicative style. In: D’Hondt, S., Östman, J.-O., and Verschueren, J. (eds.) The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shimizu, Hiroshi 1995. Ba-principle: new logic for the real-time emergence of information. Holonics 5(1): 67–79.Google Scholar

Sifianou, Maria 1992. Politeness Phenomena in England And Greece: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Oxford: Calendron.Google Scholar

Sifianou, Maria 2012. Disagreements, face and politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 44(12): 1554–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In: Basso, K. H., and Selby, H. A. (eds.) Meaning and Anthropology. Albuquerque: The University of New Mexico Press, 11–56.Google Scholar

Silverstein, Michael 1993. Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In: Lucy, J. A. (ed.) Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge University Press, 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Silverstein, Michael 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication 23: 193–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2005. (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2008[2000]. Introduction: language, culture and rapport management. In: Spencer-Oatey, H. (ed.) Culturally Speaking. London: Continuum, 1–10.Google Scholar

Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2011. Conceptualising ‘the relational’ in pragmatics: insights from metapragmatic emotion and (im)politeness comments. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14): 3565–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stivers, Tanya 2008. Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: when nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(1): 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sugimoto, Naomi 1998. Norms of apology depicted in U.S. American and Japanese literature on manners and etiquette. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 22(3): 251–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taavitsainen, Irma and Jucker, Andreas H. 2003. Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tannen, Deborah 1990. You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Bellentine Books.Google Scholar

Taylor, Stephanie 2007. Narrative as construction and discursive resource. In: Bamberg, M. (ed.) Narrative – State of the Art. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 113–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Terkourafi, Marina 2001. The distinction between generalised and particularised implicatures and linguistic politeness. In: Kühnlein, P., Hannes, R. and Zeevat, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on the Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue. Bielefeld: ZiF, 174–88.Google Scholar

Terkourafi, Marina 2005. Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research 1(2): 237–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Terkourafi, Marina 2008. Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness. In: Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A (eds.) Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 45–74.Google Scholar

Thornborrow, Joanna 2002. Power Talk: Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse. London: Longman (Pearson Education).Google Scholar

Truss, Lynne 2005. Talk to the Hand: The Utter Bloody Rudeness of Everyday Life (or Six Good Reasons to Stay Home and Bolt the Door). London: Profile Books.Google Scholar

Usami, Mayumi 2006. Discourse politeness theory and cross-cultural pragmatics. In Yositomi, Asako, Umino, Tae, and Negishi, Masashi (eds.) Linguistic Informatics V: Studies in Second Language Teaching and Second Language Acquisition. Tokyo: Center of Usage-Based Linguistic Informatics, Graduate School of Area and Culture Studies, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 9–31.Google Scholar

van Gennep, Arnold 2004. The Rites of Passage. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Verschueren, Jef 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Walkers, Joel 1979. Strategies for requesting in Spanish and English: structural similarities and pragmatic differences. Language Learning 9: 277–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wallace, Mari I. 2007. Experience, purpose, pedagogy, and theory: Ritual activities in the classroom. In: Bell, C. (ed.) Teaching Ritual. Oxford University Press, 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wang, Changhuan 王昌煥, Song Yu 宋裕, and Li Cuiying 李翠瑛 2002. Shiyong yingyong wen 實用應用文 (Practical Applied Writing). Taipei: Wan-chuan-lou.

Waters, Sophia 2012. ‘It's rude to VP’: the cultural semantics of rudeness. Journal of Pragmatics 44(9): 1051–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 1989. Relevance and relational work: linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua 8(2–3): 131–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 1992. Linguistic politeness and politic behaviour: reconsidering claims for universality. In: Watts, R. J., Ide, S. and Ehlich, K. (eds.) Politeness in Language. Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 43–69.Google Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 1999. Language and politeness in early eighteenth century Britain. Pragmatics 9(1): 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 2005. Linguistic politeness research: quo vadis? In: Watts, R. J., Ide, S. and Ehlich, K. (eds.) Politeness in Language. Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, xi–xlvii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 2008. Rudeness, conceptual blending theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 4(2): 289–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 2011. A socio-cognitive approach to historical politeness. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 12(1/2): 104–32.Google Scholar

Watts, Richard J., Ide, Sachiko and Ehlich, Konrad (eds.) 1992a. Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Watts, Richard J., Ide, Sachiko and Ehlich, Konrad 1992b. Introduction. In: Watts, R. J., Ide, S. and Ehlich, K. (eds.) Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–17.

Wenger, Etienne 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wetzel, Patricia 2004. Keigo in Modern Japan: Polite Language from Meiji to Present. Manoa: The University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, Anna 2003 [1991]. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRef

Wierzbicka, Anna 2006. English: Meaning and Culture. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilson, Thomas P. 1970. Conceptions of interaction and forms of sociological explanation. American Sociological Review 35(4): 697–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Woods, John (ed.) 2010. Fictions and Models. Munich: Philosophia Verlag.

Ye, Zhendao 2004. Chinese categorization of interpersonal relationships and the cultural logic of Chinese social interaction: an indigenous perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics 1(2): 211–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ye, Zhendao 2008. Returning to my mother tongue: Veronica's journey continues. In: Besemeres, M., and Wierzbicka, A. (eds.) Translating Lives: Living with Two Languages and Cultures. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press, 141–51.Google Scholar