Bateman, J., Wildfeuer, J. and Hiippala, T. (2017). Multimodality: Foundations, Research and Analysis – A Problem-Oriented Introduction. New York: Mouton.Google Scholar

Bloor, M. and Bloor, T. (2014). Critical discourse analysis. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Pragmatics of Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 189–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A. (eds.). (2008). Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N., ed., Questions and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–289.Google Scholar

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cap, P. (2018). Critical discourse analysis. In Jucker, A. H., Schneider, K. P. and Bublitz, W., eds., Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 425–52.Google Scholar

Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. (eds.). (2010). Historical (Im)politeness. Vol. 65. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davies, B. and Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Communities of practice: Where language, gender, and power all live. In Hall, K., Bucholtz, M. and M. Birch, , eds., Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley, CA: Women and Language Group, pp. 89–99.Google Scholar

Edelsky, C. (1981). Who’s got the floor? Language and Society, 10(3), 383–421.Google Scholar

Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Fitzmaurice, S. (2010). Changes in the meanings of politeness in eighteenth-century England: Discourse analysis and historical evidence. In Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D., eds., Historical (Im)politeness. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, pp. 87–115.Google Scholar

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2013). Introduction: Face, identity and im/politeness. Looking backward, moving forward: From Goffman to practice theory. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in Public. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Gordon, C. (2011). Gumperz and interactional sociolinguistics. In Wodak, R., Johnstone, B. and Kerswill, P., eds., The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, pp. 67–84.Google Scholar

Graham, S. L. (2007). Disagreeing to agree: Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 742–59.Google Scholar

Graham, S. L. (2008). A manual for impoliteness? The impact of the FAQ in an electronic community of practice. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A., eds., Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 281–304.Google Scholar

Graham, S. L. (2009). Hospitalk: Politeness and hierarchical structures in interdisciplinary discharge rounds. Journal of Politeness Research, 5(1), 11–31.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar

Hall, K. and Bucholtz, M. (2013). Epilogue: Facing identity. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 123–132.Google Scholar

Haugh, M., Kádár, D. and Mills, S. (2013). Interpersonal pragmatics: Issues and debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 1–11.Google Scholar

Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Jewitt, C. (ed.). (2009). The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Jones, R. (2013). Multimodal discourse analysis. In Chapelle, C. E., ed., The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 3992–6.Google Scholar

Lakoff, R. T. (1973). The logic of politeness, or minding your p’s and q’s. Chicago Linguistics Society, 9, 292–305.Google Scholar

Langlotz, A. and Locher, M. A. (2013). The role of emotions in relational work. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 87–107.Google Scholar

Langlotz, A. and Locher, M. A. (2017). (Im)politeness and emotion. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Palgrave, pp. 287–322.Google Scholar

Larson, E., Hamilton, H. E. and Eisenberg, J. (1998). Hospitalk: An exploratory study to assess what is said and what is heard between physicians and nurses. Clinical Performance and Quality Health Care, 6(4), 183–9.Google Scholar

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. (2008). Relational work, politeness and identity construction. In Antos, G., Ventola, E. and Weber, T., eds., Handbooks of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 2, Interpersonal Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 509–40.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. (2011). Situated impoliteness: The interface between relational work and identity construction. In Davies, B. L., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A. J., eds., Situated Politeness. New York: Continuum International, pp. 187–208.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. (2013). Politeness. In Chapelle, C. E., ed., The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 4457–63.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. (2014). The relational aspect of language: Avenues of research. In Mergenthal, S. and Nischik, R. M., eds., Anglistentag 2013 Konstanz: Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, pp. 309–22.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. (2015). Interpersonal pragmatics and its link to (im)politeness research. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Locher, M. A. (2017). Reflective Writing in Medical Practice: A Linguistic Perspective. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L. (2010a). Introduction to interpersonal pragmatics. In Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L., eds., Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L. (eds.). (2010b). Interpersonal Pragmatics. Vol. 6. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. and Schnurr, S. (2017). (Im)politeness in health settings. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D., eds., Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Palgrave, pp. 689–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Locher, M. A. and Thurnherr, F. (2017). Typing yourself healthy: Introduction to the special issue on language and health online. Linguistics Online, 87(8/17), 3–24.Google Scholar

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

Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. 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, pp. 77–99.Google Scholar

Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

O’Driscoll, J. (2013). The role of language in interpersonal pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 170–81.Google Scholar

Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

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

Tannen, D. and Wallat, C. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In Tannen, D., ed., Framing in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 57–76.Google Scholar

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H. and Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar

Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9, 119–54.Google Scholar

Arundale, R. B. (2008). Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 231–56.Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Barr, D. J. and Keysar, B. (2005). Making sense of how we make sense: The paradox of egocentrism in language use. In Colston, H. and Katz, A., eds., Figurative Language Comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 21–43.Google Scholar

Beaver, D. and Stanley, J. (forthcoming). Hustle: The Politics of Language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Bigi, S. (2016). Communicating (with) Care: A Linguistic Approach to the Study of Doctor-Patient Interactions. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar

Bunge, M. (1996). Finding Philosophy in Social Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Capone, A. (2020). Presuppositions as pragmemes: The case of exemplification acts. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(1), 53–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carnap, R. (1942). Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. (2009). Context and common ground. In Mey, J. L., ed., Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 116–19.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. and Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M. and Teasley, S.D., eds., Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 127–49.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H., Schreuder, R. and Buttrick, S. (1983). Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 245–58.Google Scholar

Colston, H. L. and Katz, A. N. (eds.). (2005). Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Coulson, S. (2000). Semantic Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning-Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Croft, W. (2000). Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. (2009). Impoliteness: Using and understanding the language of offence. ESRC project. www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/projects/impoliteness/.Google Scholar

Durkheim, E. (1982). The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar

Elsbach, K. D., Barr, P. S. and Hargadon, A. B. (2005). Identifying situated cognition in organizations. Organization Science, 16(4), 422–33.Google Scholar

Evans, V. (2006). Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 491–534.Google Scholar

Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C. and Cannella, B. (2008). Strategic Leadership: Theory and Research on Executives, Top Management Teams, and Boards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

García-Gómez, A. (2020). Intercultural and interpersonal communication failures: Analyzing hostile interactions among British and Spanish university students on WhatsApp. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(1), 27–53.Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. and Colston, H. (2012). Interpreting Figurative Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gil, J. M. (2019). A relational account of communication on the basis of slips of the tongue. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(2), 153–85.Google Scholar

Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 183–206.Google Scholar

Giora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context and Figurative Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. and Duranti, A. (eds.). (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

Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Horn, L. and Kecskes, I. (2013). Pragmatics, discourse and cognition. In Stephen, A., Moeschler, R. J. and Reboul, F., eds., The Language–Cognition Interface. Geneva: Librairie Droz, pp. 353–75.Google Scholar

Horton, W. S. and Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91–117.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2003). Szavak és helyzetmondatok értelmezése egy dinamikus jelentésmodell segitségével [Interpretation of words and situation-bound utterances in a dynamic model of meaning]. In Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, pp. 79–105.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2012). Is there anyone out there who is interested in the speaker? Language and Dialogue, 2(2), 285–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 385–406.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2010). The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Society, 1(1), 50–73.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2017). The effect of salience on shaping speaker’s utterance. Reti, Saperi, Linguaggi, 6(11), 5–32.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2019). Impoverished pragmatics? The semantics–pragmatics interface from an intercultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(5), 489–517.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. and Mey, J. (eds.). (2008). Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. and Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17(2), 331–55.Google Scholar

Keysar, B., Barr, D. and Horton, W. (1998). The egocentric basis of language use: Insights from a processing approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(2), 46–50.Google Scholar

Keysar, B. (2007). Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(1), 71–84.Google Scholar

Keysar, B. and Bly, B. (1995). Intuitions of the transparency of idioms: Can one keep a secret by spilling the beans? Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 89–109.Google Scholar

Keysar, B. and Henly, A. (2002). Speakers’ overestimation of their effectiveness. Psychological Science, 13, 207–12.Google Scholar

Khatib, M. and Shakouri, N. (2013). On situating the stance of socio-cognitive approach to language acquisition. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(9), 1590–95.Google Scholar

La Mantia, F. (2018). Where is meaning going? Semantic potentials and enactive grammars. Acta Structuralica, 1, 89–113.Google Scholar

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (2003). Language and mind: Let’s get the issues straight! In Dedre, G. and Goldin-Meadow, S., eds., Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 25–46.Google Scholar

Liu, P. and You, , X. Y. (2019). Metapragmatic comments in web-based intercultural peer evaluation. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(1), 57–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Macagno, F. (2018). A dialectical approach to presuppositions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(2), 291–313.Google Scholar

Macagno, F. and Capone, A. (2017). Presuppositions as cancellable inferences. In Allan, K., Capone, A. and Kecskes, I., eds., Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use. Cham, Switzerland: Spinger, pp. 45–68.Google Scholar

Macagno, F. and Bigi, S. (2017). Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies, 19(2), 148–68.Google Scholar

Martin de la Rosa, M. V. and Romero, E. D. (2019). A modality-based approach to the United Nations Security Council’s ambiguous positioning in the resolutions on the Syrian armed conflict. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(4), 363–89.Google Scholar

Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Mildorf, J. (2013). Reading fictional dialogue: Reflections on a cognitive-pragmatic reception theory. Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 24(2), 105–16.Google Scholar

Moss, M. (2013). Rhetoric and time: Cognition, culture and interaction. Unpublished PhD thesis, Chase Western University.Google Scholar

Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 187–206.Google Scholar

Romero-Trillo, J. and Maguire, L. (2011). Adaptive context: The fourth element of meaning. International Review of Pragmatics, 3, 228–41.Google Scholar

Rossi, M. G. (2016). Metaphors for patient education: A pragmatic-argumentative approach applying to the case of diabetes care. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 10(2), 34–48.Google Scholar

Scheppers, F. (2004). Notes on the notions of ‘communication’ and ‘intention’ and the status of speaker and addressee in linguistics. Circle of Linguistics Applied to Communication, 19.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. C. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–21.Google Scholar

Stanley, J. (2018). Precis of how propaganda works. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 96(2), 470–74.Google Scholar

Starbuck, W. H. and Milliken, F. J. (1988). Executive’s perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In Hambrick, D. C., ed., The Executive Effect: Concepts and Methods for Studying Top Managers. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 35–65.Google Scholar

Van Dijk, T. (2008). Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wojtaszek, A. (2016). Multimodel integration in the perception of press advertisements within the dynamic model of meaning. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 12(1), 77–101.Google Scholar

Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2078–2105.Google Scholar

Arundale, R. B. (2020). Communicating and Relating: Constituting Face in Everyday Interacting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. ([1962] 1975). How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed. Edited by Urmson, J. O. and Sbisà, M.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bayraktaroğlu, A. and Sifianou, M. (2012). The iron fist in a velvet glove: How politeness can contribute to impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research, 8(2), 143–60.Google Scholar

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Clayman, S. and Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Drew, P., eds., Requesting in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55–86.Google Scholar

Clift, R. (2001). Meaning in interaction: The case of actually. Language, 77(2), 245–91.Google Scholar

Clift, R. (2005). Discovering order. Lingua, 115, 1641–65.Google Scholar

Clift, R. (2012). Identifying action: Laughter in non-humorous reported speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1303–12.Google Scholar

Clift, R. (2014). Conversation analysis. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Pragmatics of Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 97–124.Google Scholar

Clift, R. (2016). Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Clift, R. and Raymond, C. (2018). Actions in practice: On details in collections. Discourse Studies, 20(1), 90–119.Google Scholar

Cook, H. M. (2006). Japanese politeness as an interactional achievement: Academic consultation sessions in Japanese universities. Multilingua, 25, 269–91.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Curl, T. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1257–80.Google Scholar

Curl, T. and Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 129–53.Google Scholar

Drew, P. (2018a). The interface between pragmatics and conversation analysis. In Ilie, C. and Norrick, N., eds., Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 59–83.Google Scholar

Drew, P. (2018b). Inferences and indirectness in interaction. Open Linguistics, 4, 241–59.Google Scholar

Drew, P. and Holt, E. (1998). Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation. Language in Society, 27, 495–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drew, P., Walker, T. and Ogden, R. (2013). Self-repair and action construction. In Hayashi, M., Raymond, G. and Sidnell, J., eds., Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–94.Google Scholar

Evans, N. and Levinson, S. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429–92.Google Scholar

Ferenčik, M. (2007). Exercising politeness: Membership categorisation in a radio phone-in programme. Pragmatics, 17(3), 351–70.Google Scholar

Flint, N., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A. J. (2019). Modulating troubles affiliating in initial interactions. Pragmatics, 29(3), 384–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Floyd, S., Rossi, G. and Enfield, N. J. (2020). Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. and Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In McKinney, J. C. and Tiraykian, E. A., eds., Theoretical Sociology. New York: Appleton Century Crofts, pp. 338–66.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2013). Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 52–72.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2015). Im/politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2017). Prompting offers of assistance in interaction. Pragmatics and Society, 8, 183–207.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (forthcoming). Action ascription, accountability and inference. In Deppermann, A. and Haugh, M., eds., Action Ascription. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hepburn, A. and Bolden, G. (2017). Transcribing for Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. (1984). A change of state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299–345.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27, 291–334.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. and Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: ndexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 15–38.Google Scholar

Hutchby, I. (2008). Participants’ orientations to interruptions, rudeness and other impolite acts in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(2), 221–41.Google Scholar

Jefferson, G. (1979). A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance-declination. In Psathas, G., ed., Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington, pp. 79–95.Google Scholar

Jefferson, G. (1984). On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 346–69.Google Scholar

Jefferson, G. (1985). An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. In van Dijk, T., ed., Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 3, Discourse and Dialogue. London: Academic Press, pp. 25–34.Google Scholar

Jefferson, G. (2002). Is ‘no’ an acknowledgement token? Comparing American and British uses of (+)/(−) tokens. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1345–83.Google Scholar

Jefferson, G. (2004a). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, G., ed., Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–23.Google Scholar

Jefferson, G. (2004b). A note on laughter in ‘male–female’ interaction. Discourse Studies, 6, 117–33.Google Scholar

Jefferson, G., Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E. (1987). Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. In Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E., eds., Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 152–205.Google Scholar

Kendrick, K. (2017). Using conversation analysis in the lab. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50, 1–11.Google Scholar

Kendrick, K., Brown, P., Dingemanse, M., Floyd, S., Gipper, S., Hayano, K., Hoey, E., Hoymann, G., Manrique, G., Rossi, G. and Levinson, S. C. (2020). Sequence organization: A universal infrastructure for social action. Journal of Pragmatics, 168, 119–38.Google Scholar

Kendrick, K. and Drew, P. (2014). The putative preference for offers over requests. In Drew, P. and Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 87–113.Google Scholar

Kendrick, K. and Drew, P. (2016). Recruitments: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49, 1–19.Google Scholar

Kitzinger, C. (2005). Speaking as a heterosexual: (How) does sexuality matter for talk-in-interaction? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(3), 221–65.Google Scholar

Kitzinger, C. and Mandelbaum, J. (2013) Word selection and social identities in talk-in-interaction. Communication Monographs, 80(2), 176–98.Google Scholar

Krzeszowski, T. (1990). Contrasting Languages: The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Merrison, A. J. (2011). Doing aphasia – ‘are you with me?’: Analysing face-work around issues of (non-)competence. In LPRG, ed., Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 221–44.Google Scholar

Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47–62.Google Scholar

Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2005). Managing adversarial questioning in broadcast interviews. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 193–217.Google Scholar

Pillet-Shore, D. (in press). When to make the sensory social: Registering in face-to-face openings. Symbolic Interaction.Google Scholar

Pomerantz, A. (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: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101.Google Scholar

Pomerantz, A. (2017). Inferring the purpose of a prior query and responding accordingly. In Raymond, G., Lerner, G. and Heritage, J., eds., Enabling Human Conduct. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 61–77.Google Scholar

Pomerantz, A. and Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 210–28.Google Scholar

Pomerantz, A. and Mandelbaum, J. (2005). Conversation analytic approaches to the relevance and uses of relationship categories in interaction. In Fitch, K. and Sanders, R., eds., Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 149–71.Google Scholar

Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939–67.Google Scholar

Raymond, G. and Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35, 677–705.Google Scholar

Robinson, J. (2016). Accountability in social interaction. In Robinson, J., ed., Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–44.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In Sudnow, D., ed., Studies in Social Interaction. New York: The Free Press, pp. 31–75.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21–27.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. (1992a). Lectures on Conversation. Vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. (1992b). Lectures on Conversation. Vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Psathas, G., ed., Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington, pp. 15–21.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–95.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 99–128.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102, 161–216.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-inititated repair. Discourse Processes, 23, 499–545.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. (2000). On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 715–20.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. (2010). Commentary on Stivers and Rossano: ‘Mobilising response’. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43, 38–48.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. (2017). Conversation analysis. In Huang, Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 435–49.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organisation of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–82.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. and Lerner, G. (2009). Beginning to respond: Well-preface responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42, 91–115.Google Scholar

Schenkein, J. (ed.). (1978). Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Adolphs, S. (2008). Corpus and Context: Investigating Pragmatic Functions in Spoken Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Adolphs, S. and Carter, R. (2007). Beyond the word. European Journal of English Studies, 11(2), 133–46.Google Scholar

Adolphs, S. and Carter, R. (2013). Spoken Corpus Linguistics: From Monomodal to Multimodal. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Aijmer, K. (2015). Pragmatic markers. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195–218.Google Scholar

Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C. (eds.). (2015). Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Avila-Ledesma, N. E. and Amador-Moreno, C. P. (2016). “The more please [places] I see the more I think of home”: On gendered discourse of Irishness and migration experiences. In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2016: Global Implications for Society and Education in the Networked Age. Cham, Switzerland: Spinger, pp. 85–105.Google Scholar

Brookes, H. (2005). What gestures do: Some communicative functions of quotable gestures in conversations among Black urban South Africans. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(12), 2044–85.Google Scholar

Calbris, G. (2011). Elements of Meaning in Gesture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Diani, G. (2015). Politeness. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 169–91.Google Scholar

Duncan, S. D., Cassell, J. and Levy, E. (eds.). (2007). Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language: Essays in Honor of David McNeill. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Fraser, B. (2015). The combining of discourse markers – a beginning. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 48–53.Google Scholar

Fung, L. and Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410–39.Google Scholar

Gablasova, D. and Brezina, V. (2015). Does speaker role affect the choice of epistemic adverbials in L2 speech? Evidence from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus. In Romero-Trillo, J., ed., Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics: Current Approaches to Discourse and Translation Studies. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 117–36.Google Scholar

Gablasova, D., Brezina, V. and McEnery, T. (2017). Collocations in corpus-based language learning research: Identifying, comparing, and interpreting the evidence. Language Learning, 67, 155–79.Google Scholar

Gray, B. and Biber, D. (2015). Stance markers. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 219–48.Google Scholar

Gullberg, M. (1998). Gesture as a Communication Strategy in Second Language Discourse: A Study of Learners of French and Swedish. Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press.Google Scholar

Gullberg, M. (2006). Some reasons for studying gesture and second language acquisition (Hommage à Adam Kendon). International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 44(2), 103–24.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. and Culpeper, J. (2018). Integrative pragmatics and (im)politeness theory. In Ilie, C. and Norrick, N. R., eds., Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 213–39.Google Scholar

Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Irvine, C. A., Eigsti, I. M. and Fein, D. A. (2016). Uh, Um, and autism: Filler disfluencies as pragmatic markers in adolescents with optimal outcomes from autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(3), 1061–70.Google Scholar

Jautz, S. (2008). Gratitude in British and New Zealand radio programmes: Nothing but gushing? In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 141–78.Google Scholar

Kallen, J. L. and Kirk, J. M. (2008). ICE-Ireland: A User’s Guide. Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona.Google Scholar

Kallen, J. L. and Kirk, J. M. (2012). SPICE-Ireland: A User’s Guide. Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona.Google Scholar

Kendon, A. (1995). Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers in Southern Italian conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 23(3), 247–79.Google Scholar

Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kennedy, G. (1998). An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Kita, S., van Gijn, I. and van der Hulst, H. (1998). Movement phases in signs and co-speech gestures, and their transcription by human coders. In Wachsmuth, I. and Fröhlich, M., eds., Gesture and Sign Language in Human–Computer Interaction: International Gesture Workshop Bielefeld, Germany, September 17–19, 1997 Proceedings, pp. 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0052986Google Scholar

Knight, D. (2011). Multimodality and Active Listenership: A Corpus Approach. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Kohnen, T. (2015). Speech acts: A diachronic perspective. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook, pp. 52–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Maíz-Arévalo, C. (2017). Expressive speech acts in educational e-chats. Soprag, 5(2), 151–78.Google Scholar

Martín-Laguna, S. and Alcón-Soler, E. (2018). Development of discourse-pragmatic markers in a multilingual classroom: A mixed method research approach. System, 75, 68–80.Google Scholar

McEnery, T. and Hardie, A. (2011). Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Mestre-Mestre, E. M. (2016). Healing and comfort on the net: Gender and emotions in violent domestic environments. In Romero-Trillo, J., ed., Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2016: Global Implications for Society and Education in the Networked Age. Cham, Switzerland: Spinger, pp. 51–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

O’Keeffe, A. and Adolphs, S. (2008). Response tokens in British and Irish discourse: Corpus, context and variational pragmatics. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 69–98.Google Scholar

Romero-Trillo, J. D. (ed.). (2013). Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics: New Domains and Methodologies. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar

Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.). (2014). Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics: New Empirical and Theoretical Paradigms. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar

Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.). (2015). Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics: Current Approaches to Discourse and Translation Studies. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar

Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.). (2016). Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics: Global Implications for Society and Education in the Networked Age. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar

Romero-Trillo, J. (2018a). Corpus pragmatics and second language pragmatics: A mutualistic entente in theory and practice. Corpus Pragmatics, 2(2), 113–27.Google Scholar

Romero-Trillo, J. (2018b). Prosodic modeling and position analysis of pragmatic markers in English conversation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(1), 169–95.Google Scholar

Ronan, P. (2015). Categorizing expressive speech acts in the pragmatically annotated SPICE Ireland corpus. ICAME Journal, 39(1), 25–45.Google Scholar

Rühlemann, C. and Aijmer, K. (2015). Introduction: Corpus pragmatics: Laying the foundations. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar

Rühlemann, C. and Clancy, B. (2018). Corpus linguistics and pragmatics. In Ilie, C. and Norrick, N. R., eds., Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 241–66.Google Scholar

Rühlemann, C. and O’Donnell, M. B. (2015). Deixis. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 331–59.Google Scholar

Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A. (eds.). (2008). Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1971). The Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts 1. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23.Google Scholar

Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sloetjes, H. and Wittenburg, P. (2008). Annotation by category-ELAN and ISO DCR. In The Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008), pp. 816–20.Google Scholar

Stubbe, M. and Holmes, J. (1995). You know, eh and other “exasperating expressions”: An analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English. Language and Communication, 15(1), 63–88.Google Scholar

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.Google Scholar

Thomas, J. A. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Tottie, G. (2011). Uh and Um as sociolinguistic markers in British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(1), 173–97.Google Scholar

Tottie, G. (2015). Turn management and the fillers uh and um. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 381–407.Google Scholar

Tree, J. E. F. and Schrock, J. C. (2002). Basic meanings of you know and I mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 727–47.Google Scholar

Tsuchiya, K. (2013). Listenership Behaviours in Intercultural Encounters: A Time-Aligned Multimodal Corpus Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Weisser, M. (2016). DART – The dialogue annotation and research tool. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12(2), 355–88.Google Scholar

Werner, V. (2017). Adversative pragmatic markers in learner language: A cross-sectional perspective. Corpus Pragmatics, 1(2), 135–58.Google Scholar

Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A. and Sloetjes, H. (2006). Elan: A professional framework for multimodality research. In Proceedings of LREC 2006, Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation.Google Scholar

Woods, H. B. (1991). Social differentiation in Ottawa English. In Cheshire, J., ed., English around the World: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 134–50.Google Scholar

Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Al-Ali, M. (2006). Religious affiliations and masculine power in Jordanian wedding invitation. Discourse and Society, 12(6), 691–714.Google Scholar

Anchimbe, E. A. (2018). Offers and Offer Refusals: A Postcolonial Pragmatics Perspective on World Englishes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Anchimbe, E. A. and Janney, R. W. (2011). Postcolonial pragmatics: An introduction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1451–9.Google Scholar

Ash, S. (2002). Social class. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P. and Schilling-Estes, N., eds., The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 402–22.Google Scholar

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

Barron, A. (2005). Offering in Ireland and England. In Barron, A. and Schneider, K. P., eds., The Pragmatics of Irish English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 141–77.Google Scholar

Barron, A. (2008). The structure of requests in Irish English and English English. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 35–67.Google Scholar

Barron, A. (2017). Variational pragmatics. In Barron, A., Gu, Y. and Steen, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. London: Routledge, pp. 91–104.Google Scholar

Barron, A., Pandarova, I. and Muderack, K. (2015). Tag questions across Irish English and British English: A corpus analysis of form and function. Multilingua, 34(4), 495–524.Google Scholar

Barron, A. and Schneider, K. P. (2009). Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language use in interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(4), 425–42.Google Scholar

Beeching, K. and Woodfield, H. (eds.). (2015). Researching Sociopragmatic Variability: Perspectives from Variational, Interlanguage and Contrastive Pragmatics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Bieswanger, M. (2015). Variational pragmatics and responding to thanks – revisited. Multilingua, 34(4), 527–46.Google Scholar

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G. (1989). Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G., eds., Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. ([1978] 1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Burmeister, M. (2013). Variability in death notices from Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland: A comparative perspective. In Bieswanger, M. and Koll-Stobbe, A., eds., New Approaches to the Study of Linguistic Variability. Frankfurt, Germany: Lang, pp. 65–88.Google Scholar

Chen, R. (1993). Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 49–75.Google Scholar

Cheshire, J. (2002). Sex and gender in variationist research. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P. and Schilling-Estes, N., eds., The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 423–43.Google Scholar

Clancy, B. (2011). ‘Do you want to do it yourself like?’ Hedging in Irish traveller and settled family discourse. In Davies, B. L., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A. J., eds., Situated Politeness. London: Continuum, pp. 129–46.Google Scholar

Clift, R. (2014). Conversation analysis. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Pragmatics of Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 97–124.Google Scholar

Decock, S. and Spiessens, A. (2017). Customer complaints and disagreements in a multilingual business environment: A discursive-pragmatic analysis. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 77–115.Google Scholar

Dinkin, A. J. (2018). It’s no problem to be polite: Apparent-time change in responses to thanks. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 22(2), 190–215.Google Scholar

Farr, F. and Murphy, B. (2009). Religious references in contemporary Irish English: ‘For the love of God almighty … I’m a holy terror for turf’. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(4), 535–59.Google Scholar

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008). Sociopragmatic variation: Dispreferred responses in Mexican and Dominican Spanish. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(1), 81–110.Google Scholar

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2009). Pragmatic variation across Spanish(es): Requesting in Mexican, Costa Rican and Dominican Spanish. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(4), 473–515.Google Scholar

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2015). The Language of Service Encounters: A Pragmatic-Discursive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Flöck, I. and Geluykens, R. (2018). Preference organization and cross-cultural variation in request responses: A corpus-based comparison of British and American English. Corpus Pragmatics, 2, 57–82.Google Scholar

Fuentes Rodríguez, C., Placencia, M. E. and Palma-Fahey, M. (2016). Regional pragmatic variation in the use of the discourse marker pues in informal talk among university students in Quito (Ecuador), Santiago (Chile) and Seville (Spain). Journal of Pragmatics, 97, 74–92.Google Scholar

García, C. (2008). Different realizations of solidarity politeness: Comparing Venezuelan and Argentinean invitations. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 269–305.Google Scholar

Georgakopoulou, A. and Charalambidou, A. (2011). Doing age and ageing: Language, discourse and social interaction. In Andersen, G. and Aijmer, K., eds., Pragmatics of Society. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 31–51.Google Scholar

Goddard, C. (2012). Early interactions in Australian English, American English, and English English: Cultural differences and cultural scripts. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(9), 1038–50.Google Scholar

Grant, T. and MacLeod, N. (2016). Assuming identities online: Experimental linguistics applied to policing of online paedophile activity. Applied Linguistics, 37(1), 50–70.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. and Carbaugh, D. (2015). Self-disclosure in initial interactions amongst speakers of American and Australian English. Multilingua, 34(4), 461–94.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. and Schneider, K. P. (2012). Editorial: Im/politeness across Englishes. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(9), 1017–21.Google Scholar

Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Jautz, S. (2013). Thanking Formulae in English: Explorations across Varieties and Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Jucker, A. (2009). Speech act research between armchair, field and laboratory: The case of compliments. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1611–35.Google Scholar

Jucker, A. and Taavitsainen, I. (2012). Pragmatic variables. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. and Conde-Silvestre, J. C., eds., The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 293–306.Google Scholar

Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(1), 193–218.Google Scholar

Kachru, 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: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar

Lázaro Ruiz, H. and Ramajo Cuesta, A. (2015). Compliment responses in peninsular Spanish: Exploratory and contrastive study conducted on women from Madrid, Valencia, Catalonia, Andalusia and Castile-Leon. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 212, 93–8.Google Scholar

Lin, C.-Y. (2015). The role of gender in Taiwan and Mainland Chinese compliments. In Beeching, K. and Woodfield, H., eds., Researching SocioPragmatic Variability: Perspectives from Variational, Interlanguage and Contrastive Pragmatics. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 49–71.Google Scholar

Lin, C.-Y., Woodfield, H. and Ren, W. (2012). Compliments in Taiwan and mainland Chinese: The influence of region and compliment topic. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(11), 1486–1502.Google Scholar

Márquez Reiter, R. and Placencia, M. E. (2005). Spanish Pragmatics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Merrison, A. J., Wilson, J. J., Davies, B. L. and Haugh, M. (2012). Getting stuff done: Comparing e-mail requests from students in higher education in Britain and Australia. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(9), 1077–98.Google Scholar

Muhr, R. (2008). The pragmatics of a pluricentric language: A comparison between Austrian German and German German. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 211–44.Google Scholar

Mukherjee, J. and Hundt, M. (eds.). (2011). Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Mulo Farenkia, B. (2014). Speech Acts and Politeness in French as a Pluricentric Language: Illustrations from Cameroon and Canada. Münster: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar

Mulo Farenkia, B. (2015). Invitation refusals in Cameroon French and Hexagonal French. Multilingua, 34(4), 577–603.Google Scholar

Murphy, B. (2011). Gender identities and discourse. In Andersen, G. and Aijmer, K., eds., Pragmatics of Society. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 53–77.Google Scholar

Murphy, B. (2012). Exploring response tokens in Irish English – a multidisciplinary approach: Integrating variational pragmatics, sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(3), 325–48.Google Scholar

Nilsson, J., Norrthon, S., Lindström, J. and Wide, C. (2018). Greetings as social action in Finland Swedish and Sweden Swedish service encounters – a pluricentric perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(1), 57–88.Google Scholar

Norrby, C. and Kretzenbacher, H. L. (2014). Address in two pluricentric languages: Swedish and German. In Soares da Silva, A., ed., Pluricentricity: Language Variation and Sociocognitive Dimensions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 243–67.Google Scholar

Ogiermann, E. (2018). Discourse completion tasks. In Jucker, A., Schneider, K. P. and Bublitz, W., eds., Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 229–55.Google Scholar

O’Keeffe, A. and Adolphs, S. (2008). Response tokens in British and Irish discourse: Corpus, context and variational pragmatics. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 69–98.Google Scholar

Owen, M. (1983). Apologies and Remedial Interchanges: A Study of Language Use in Social Interaction. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

Pichler, H. (ed.). (2016). Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change in English: New Methods and Insights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Placencia, M. E. (2008). Requests in corner shop transactions in Ecuadorian Andean and Coastal Spanish. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 307–22.Google Scholar

Placencia, M. E., Fuentes Rodríguez, C. and Palma-Fahey, M. (2015). Nominal address and rapport management in informal interactions among university students in Quito (Ecuador), Santiago (Chile) and Seville (Spain). Multilingua, 34(4), 547–75.Google Scholar

Plevoets, K., Speelman, D. and Geeraerts, D. (2008). The distribution of T/V pronouns in Netherlandic and Belgian Dutch. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 181–209.Google Scholar

Queen, R. (2013). Gender, sex, sexuality, and sexual identities. In Chambers, J. K. and Schilling, N., eds., The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 368–87.Google Scholar

Ren, W. (2015). Sociopragmatic variation in mainland and Taiwan Chinese refusals. In Beeching, K. and Woodfield, H., eds., Researching Sociopragmatic Variability: Perspectives from Variational, Interlanguage and Contrastive Pragmatics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 72–93.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. and Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closing. Semiotica, 8, 289–328.Google Scholar

Schlieben-Lange, B. and Weydt, H. (1978). Für eine Pragmatisierung der Dialektologie. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 6(3), 257–82.Google Scholar

Schneider, K. P. (1988). Small Talk: Analysing Phatic Discourse. Marburg, Germany: Hitzeroth.Google Scholar

Schneider, K. P. (2003). Diminutives in English. Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Schneider, K. P. (2005). ‘No problem, you’re welcome, anytime’: Responding to thanks in Ireland, England, and the USA. In A. Barron, and Schneider, K. P., eds., The Pragmatics of Irish English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 101–39.Google Scholar

Schneider, K. P. (2008). Small talk in England, Ireland, and the USA. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 99–139.Google Scholar

Schneider, K. P. (2010). Variational pragmatics. In Fried, M., Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Variation and Change: Pragmatic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 239–67.Google Scholar

Schneider, K. P. (2012a). Appropriate behaviour across varieties of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(9), 1022–37.Google Scholar

Schneider, K. P. (2012b). Pragmatics. In Hickey, R., ed., Topics in English Linguistics: Areal Features of the Anglophone World. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 463–86.Google Scholar

Schneider, K. P. (2012c). Pragmatic variation and cultural models. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 10(2), 346–72.Google Scholar

Schneider, K. P. (2014). Comparability and sameness in variational pragmatics. In Mergenthal, S. and Nischik, R. M., eds., Anglistentag 2013 Konstanz: Proceedings. Trier, Germany: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, pp. 361–72.Google Scholar

Schneider, K. P. (2017). Pragmatic competence and pragmatic variation. In Giora, R. and Haugh, M., eds., Doing Pragmatics Interculturally: Cognitive, Philosophical, and Sociopragmatic Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 315–33.Google Scholar

Schneider, K. P. (2018). Methods and ethics of data collection. In Jucker, A., Schneider, K. P. and Bublitz, W., eds., Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 37–93.Google Scholar

Schneider, K. P. (2019). Re-thinking pragmatic variation: The case of service encounters from a modified variational pragmatics perspective. In Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and Placencia, M. E., eds., Pragmatic Variation in Service Encounter Interactions across the Spanish-Speaking World. Oxford: Routledge, pp. 251–62.Google Scholar

Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A. (2008a). Where pragmatics and dialectology meet: Introducing variational pragmatics. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar

Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A. (eds.). (2008b). Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Schneider, K. P. and Placencia, M. E. (2017). (Im)politeness and regional variation. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 539–70.Google Scholar

Schneider, K. P. and Schröder, A. (2014). Comparison and comparability in language studies. In Mergenthal, S. and Nischik, R. M., eds., Anglistentag 2013 Konstanz: Proceedings. Trier, Germany: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, pp. 303–7.Google Scholar

Schölmberger, U. (2008). Apologizing in French French and Canadian French. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational pragmatics: A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 333–54.Google Scholar

Schröder, A. and Schneider, K. P. (2018). Variational pragmatics, responses to thanks, and the specificity of English in Namibia. English World-Wide, 39(3), 338–63.Google Scholar

Schröder, A. and Schneider, K. P. (forthcoming). A variational pragmatics approach to responses to thanks in Namibian English: From quantitative to qualitative analysis. In Schröder, A., ed., The Dynamics of English in Namibia. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Schubert, C. and Sanchez-Stockhammer, C. (eds.). (2016). Variational Text Linguistics: Revisiting Register in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Schüpbach, D. (2014). German or Swiss? Address and other routinised formulas in German-speaking Switzerland. In Hajek, J. and Slaughter, Y., eds., Challenging the Monolingual Mindset. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 63–77.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Staley, L. (2018). Socioeconomic Pragmatic Variation: Speech Acts and Address Forms in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, B. and Kortmann, B. (2009). Vernacular universals and angloversals in a typological perspective. In Filppula, M., Klemola, J. and Paulasto, H., eds., Vernacular Universals and Language Contacts: Evidence from Varieties of English and Beyond. New York: Routledge, pp. 33–54.Google Scholar

Terkourafi, M. (2012). Between pragmatics and sociolinguistics: Where does pragmatic variation fit it? In Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and Koike, D. A., eds., Pragmatic Variation in First and Second Language Contexts: Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 295–318.Google Scholar

Wagner, L. and Roebuck, R. (2010). Apologizing in Cuernavaca, Mexico and Panama City, Panama: A cross-cultural comparison of positive- and negative-politeness strategies. Spanish in Context, 7(2), 254–78.Google Scholar

Warga, M. (2008). Requesting in German as a pluricentric language. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 245–66.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 9(2–3), 145–78.Google Scholar

Wolfram, W. and Schilling, N. (2016). American English: Dialects and Variation. 3rd ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Zahler, S. L. (2016). Pragmalinguistic variation in electronic personal ads from Mexico City and London. IULC Working Papers, 15(1), 208–30.Google Scholar

Dawson, J. (ed.). (2004/2007). The Breadalbane Collection, 1548–1583. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. www.ed.ac.uk/divinity/research/resources/breadalbane.Google Scholar

National Records of Scotland, Edinburgh. Papers of the Campbell Family, Earls of Breadalbane (Breadalbane Muniments), MS NRS GD112/39/3/24, MS NRS GD112/39/3/26, MS NRS GD112/39/3/27, MS NRS GD112/39/5/2.Google Scholar

Archer, D. E. (2005). Questions and Answers in the English Courtroom (1640–1760). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Arnovick, L. K. (1999). Diachronic Pragmatics: Seven Case Studies in English Illocutionary Development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bax, M. (2010). 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, pp. 37–85.Google Scholar

Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1989). Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society, 18(2), 159–212.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, M. (1999). ‘Why be normal?’: Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society, 28(2), 203–23.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2004). Language and identity. In Duranti, A., ed., A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 369–94.Google Scholar

Busse, U. (2002). Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus: Morpho-Syntactic Variability of Second Person Pronouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Campbell, A. (2002). A History of Clan Campbell: From Flodden to the Restoration. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Carroll, R., Peikola, M., Salmi, H., Varila, M.-L., Skaffari, J. and Hiltunen, R. (2013). Pragmatics on the page. European Journal of English Studies, 17(1), 54–71.Google Scholar

Cathcart, A. (2006). Kinship and Clientage: Highland Clanship 1451–1609. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.Google Scholar

Chapman, S. (2011). Pragmatics. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Claridge, C. (2018). Now in the historical courtroom. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 19(2), 223–42.Google Scholar

Claridge, C. and Kytö, M. (eds.). (2020). Punctuation in Context – Past and Present Perspectives. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Cruickshank, J. (2013). The role of communities of practice in the emergence of Scottish Standard English. In Kopaczyk, J. and Jucker, A. H., eds., Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 19–49.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349–67.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. (2009). Historical sociopragmatics: An introduction. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 10(2), 179–86.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. (2010). Historical sociopragmatics. In Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I., eds., Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 69–94.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. (ed.). (2011a). Historical Sociopragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. (2011b). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. and Archer, D. E. (2008). Requests and directness in Early Modern English trial proceedings and play texts, 1640–1760. In Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I., eds., Speech Acts in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 45–84.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J., Crawshaw, R. and Harrison, J. (2008). ‘Activity types’ and ‘discourse types’: Mediating ‘advice’ in interactions between foreign language assistants and their supervisors in schools in France and England. Multilingua, 27, 297–324.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. and Hardaker, C. (2017). Impoliteness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 199–225.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. and Kytö, M. (2010). Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dawson, J. (ed.). (1997). Campbell Letters 1559–1583. Edinburgh: Scottish History Society.Google Scholar

DOST = Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue. (2004/2014). University of Dundee/University of Glasgow. www.dsl.ac.uk/.Google Scholar

Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester, UK: St Jerome.Google Scholar

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

Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jacobs, A. and Jucker, A. H. (1995). The historical perspective in pragmatics. In Jucker, A. H., ed., Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–33.Google Scholar

Jucker, A. H. (ed.). (1995). Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Jucker, A. H. (2012). ‘These imputations are too common, sir’: Politeness in Early Modern English dialogues: The case of Ben Jonson’s Volpone, or The Fox. In Mazzon, G. and Fodde, L., eds., Historical Perspectives on Forms of English Dialogue. Milan, Italy: Franco Angeli, pp. 40–58.Google Scholar

Jucker, A. H. (2014). Courtesy and politeness in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 49(3), 5–28.Google Scholar

Jucker, A. H. (2017). Pragmatics and language change: Historical pragmatics. In Huang, Y., ed., Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 550–66.Google Scholar

Jucker, A. H. and Locher, M. A. (2017). Introducing Pragmatics of Fiction: Approaches, trends and developments. In Locher, M. A. and Jucker, A. H., eds., Pragmatics of Fiction, Handbooks of Pragmatics 12. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar

Jucker, A. H. and Pahta, P. (2011). Communicating manuscripts: Authors, scribes, readers, listeners and communicating characters. In Pahta, P. and Jucker, A. H., eds., Communicating Early English Manuscripts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar

Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. (2000). Diachronic speech act analysis: Insults from flyting to flaming. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 1(1), 67–95.Google Scholar

Jucker, A. and Taavitsainen, I. (eds.). (2010). Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. (2013). English Historical Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Kádár, D. Z. (2010). Exploring the historical Chinese polite denigration/elevation phenomenon. In Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., Historical (Im)politeness. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, 117–45.Google Scholar

Kádár, D. Z., Haugh, M. and Chang, W.-L. M. (2013). Aggression and perceived national face threats in Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese CMC discussion boards. Multilingua, 32(3), 343–72.Google Scholar

Keay, J. and Keay, J. (eds.). (2000). Collins Encyclopedia of Scotland. Rev. ed. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Kopaczyk, J. and Jucker, A. H. (eds.). (2013). Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kopytko, R. (1995). Linguistic politeness strategies in Shakespeare’s plays. In Jucker, A. H., ed., Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 515–40.Google Scholar

Kytö, M. (2010). Data in historical pragmatics. In Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I., eds., Historical Pragmatics, Handbooks of Pragmatics 8. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 33–67.Google Scholar

Kytö, M., Grund, P. and Walker, T. (2011). Testifying to Language and Life in Early Modern England. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Language Change, Volume 1: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Leitner, M. (2015). Conflicts in Early Modern Scottish letters and law-courts. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar

Leitner, M. (2017). Curses or threats? Debating the power of witches’ words in 17th-century Scottish courtrooms. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 16(1), 145–70.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 9–33.Google Scholar

Lutzky, U. (2012). Discourse Markers in Early Modern English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Marcus, I. (2018). The Linguistics of Spoken Communication in Early Modern English Writing: Exploring Bess of Hardwick’s Manuscript Letters. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Marmaridou, S. (2011). Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. In Bublitz, W. and Norrick, N. R., eds., Foundations of Pragmatics, Handbooks of Pragmatics 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 77–106.Google Scholar

Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Moore, C. (2011). Quoting Speech in Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nevala, M. (2004). Address in Early English Correspondence: Its Forms and Socio-Pragmatic Functions. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (1995). Constraints on politeness: The pragmatics of address formulae in early English correspondence. In Jucker, A. H., ed., Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 541–601.Google Scholar