Auer, P. (1992). Introduction: John Gumperz’ approach to contextualization. In Auer, P. and Luzio, A. Di, eds., The Contextualization of Language (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 22). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Auer, P. (2009). Context and contextualization. In Verschueren, J. and Östman, J., eds., Key Notions for Pragmatics (Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 1). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 86–101.Google Scholar

Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brewer, W. (1987). Schemas versus mental models in human memory. In Morris, P., eds., Modelling Cognition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 187–197.Google Scholar

Chein, M. and Mugnier, M. (2008). Graph-based Knowledge Representation: Computational Foundations of Conceptual Graphs (Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing). London: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

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

Diedrichsen, E. (2019). On the interaction of core and emergent common ground in internet memes. Internet Pragmatics: Special issue on the Pragmatics of Internet Memes, 3(2), 223–259. https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00033.die.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Firth, J. R. (1968). Selected Papers of J. R. Firth. London: Longmans/Prentice Hall Press.Google Scholar

Flowerdew, J. (2016). Discourse in Context: Contemporary Applied Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury Academic Publishing.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. and Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2010). Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 2889–2897.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2013a). Intercultural pragmatics. In Sharifian, F., and Jamarani, M., eds., Language and Intercultural Communication in the New Era. London: Routledge, pp. 39–59.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2013b). Intercultural encyclopedic knowledge, and cultural models. In Sharifian, F. and Jamarani, M., eds., Language and Intercultural Communication in the New Era. London: Routledge, pp. 39–59.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2015). Language, culture, and context. In Sharifian, F., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. Oxford/New York: Routledge, pp. 113–128.Google Scholar

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

Kecskes, I. and Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17(2), 331–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lemos, N. (2007). An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. Supplement I to Ogden, C. K. and Richard, I. A., eds., The Meaning of Meaning. New York: Harcourt Brace, pp. 296–336.Google Scholar

Malinowski, B. (1931). Culture. Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 4, 621–646.Google Scholar

Malinowski, B. (1935). Coral Gardens and Their Magic. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

Malinowski, B. ([1944] 1960). A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mey, J. (2008). “Impeach or exorcise?” Or, what is in the (common) ground? In Kecskes, I. and Mey, J., eds., Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 255–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In Winston, P. H., ed., The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, pp. 311–377.Google Scholar

Nerlich, B. (1988). Philipp Wegener’s (1848–1916) theory of language and communication. Henry Sweet Society for the History of Linguistic Ideas Bulletin, 11(1), 11–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02674971.1988.11745345.Google Scholar

Nerlich, B. (1990). Change in Language: Whitney, Bréal and Wegener (Routledge History of Linguistic Thought Series). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Nerlich, B. and Clarke, D. (1996). Language, Action and Context: The Early History of Pragmatics in Europe and America (Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Volume 80). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1780–1930.Google Scholar

Nolan, B. (2008). Modality in RRG: Towards a characterisation using Irish data. In Van Valin, R., ed., Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface: Studies in Language Companion Series 105. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins, pp. 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nolan, B. (2012). The Structure of Modern Irish: A Functional Account. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Nolan, B. (2013). Constructions as grammatical objects: A case study of the prepositional ditransitive construction in Modern Irish. In Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E., Linking Constructions into functional linguistics (Studies in Language Companion Series 145). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins, pp. 143–178.Google Scholar

Nolan, B. (2014). Extending a lexicalist functional grammar through speech acts, constructions and conversational software agents. In Nolan, B. and Periñán, C., eds., Language Processing and Grammars: The Role of Functionally Oriented Computational Models (Studies in Language Companion Series 150). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins, pp. 143–164.Google Scholar

Nolan, B. (2017). The syntactic realisation of complex events and complex predicates in situations of Irish. In Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E., eds., Argument Realisation in Complex Predicates and Complex Events (Studies in Language Companion Series 180). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins, pp. 13–41.Google Scholar

Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E. (2013). Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics (Studies in Language Companion Series 145). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Östman, J. and Simon-Vandenbergen, A. (2009). Firthian linguistics. In Senft, G., Östman, J., and Verschueren, J., eds., Culture and Language Use. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 140–145.Google Scholar

Panesar, K. (2017). A linguistically centred text-based conversational software agent. Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Computing, Creative Technologies and Engineering, Leeds Beckett University.Google Scholar

Panesar, K. (2019a). Functional linguistic-based motivations for a conversational software agent. In Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E., eds., Linguistic Perspectives on the Construction of Meaning and Knowledge. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 340–371.Google Scholar

Panesar, K. (2019b). An evaluation of a linguistically motivated conversational software agent framework. Journal of Computer-Assisted Linguistic Research, 3(3): 41–66. https://doi.org/10.4995/jclr.2019.11118.Google Scholar

Pojman, L. P. (2001). What Can We Know? An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Belmont: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.Google Scholar

Pritchard, D. (2018). What Is This Thing Called Knowledge? Oxford/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rescher, N. (2003). Epistemology: An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Schank, R. C. (1975). The structure of episodes in memory. In Bobrow, D. G. and Collins, A., eds., Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 421–432.Google Scholar

Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. (1975). Scripts, plans, and knowledge. In Johnson-Laird, P. N., ed., Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science. New York: Academic Press, Inc, pp. 237–272.Google Scholar

Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

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

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

Senft, G. Östman, J. and Verschueren, J. (2009). Culture and language use. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Senft, G. (2007). Bronislaw Malinowski and Linguistic Pragmatics. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 3, 79–96.Google Scholar

Senft, G. (2009a). Introduction. In Senft, G., Östman, J., and Verschueren, J., eds., Culture and Language Use. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar

Senft, G. (2009b). Bronislaw Kasper Malinowski. In Senft, G., Östman, J., and Verschueren, J., eds., Culture and Language Use (Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 210–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Serangi, S. (2009). Culture. In Senft, G., Östman, J., and Verschueren, J., eds., Culture and Language Use. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural Conceptualisations and Language: Theoretical Framework and Applications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sharifian, F. (2015a). Cultural linguistics. In Sharifian, F., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. Oxford/New York: Routledge, pp. 473–492.Google Scholar

Sharifian, F. (2015b). Language and culture: overview. In Sharifian, F.. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. Oxford/New York: Routledge, pp. 3–18.Google Scholar

Sharifian, F. (2015c). The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. New York/London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar

Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural Linguistics: Cultural Conceptualisations and Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sharifian, F and Palmer, G. B. (2007). Applied Cultural Linguistics: Implications for Second Language Learning and Intercultural Communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sowa, J. F. (1984). Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Sowa, J. F. (1987). Semantic networks. In Shapiro, S. C., ed., Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 1011–1024.Google Scholar

Sowa, J. F. (1997). Matching logical structure to linguistic structure, In Houser, N., Roberts, D., and Evra, J. Van, eds., Studies in the Logic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, pp. 418–444.Google Scholar

Sowa, J. F. (2008). Conceptual graphs. In van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., and Porter, B., eds., Handbook of Knowledge Representation. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 213−237.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. C. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole, ed., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. IX: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 315–332. Repr. in R. C. Stalnaker (1999), Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 78–95.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. C. (1998). On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information. Repr. in R. C. Stalnaker (1999), Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 96–114.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. C. (1999a). Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. C. (1999b). Introduction. In R. C. Stalnaker, Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stalnaker, R. C. (2014). Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

[Stanford] (2020). Speech acts. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. Section 3.3 Seven Components of Illocutionary Force. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/ (retrieved on April 16, 2021).Google Scholar

Wegener, P. [1885] (1991). Untersuchungen über die Grundfragen des Sprachlebens (Investigations into the Fundamental Questions of the Life of Language). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Weigand, edda. (2021). Language and dialogue in philosophy and science. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 533–561.Google Scholar

Wodak, R. (2016). Political discourse analysis: Distinguishing frontstage and backstage contexts: A discourse-historical approach. In J. Flowerdew. Discourse in Context: Contemporary Applied Linguistics, Vol. III. London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 321–346.Google Scholar

Zwaan, R. A. and Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.Google Scholar

Alexander, J. C. and Giesen, B. (1987). Introduction. In Alexander, J. C., ed., The Micro-Macro Link. Berkley: The University of California Press, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar

Akman, V., Bouquet, P., Thomason, R., and Young, R. A. (eds.) (2001). Modeling and Using Context: Third International and Interdisciplinary Conference Proceedings. Vol. 2116. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

Ariel, M. (2008). Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Armon, R. (2019). Ordinary science. In Fetzer, A. and Weizman, E., eds., The Construction of “Ordinariness” across Media Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, K. (1997). The semantics–pragmatics distinction: What it is and why it matters. In Rolf, E., ed., Pragmatik. Linguistische Berichte (Forschung Information Diskussion). Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 33–50.Google Scholar

Bach, K. (2006). The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. In Birner, B. and Ward, G., eds., Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honour of Laurence R. Horn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 33–50.Google Scholar

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Chandler Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Blackburn, P., Ghidini, C., Turner, R. M., and Giunchiglia, F. (eds.) (2003). Modeling and Using Context: 4th International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT 2003, Stanford, CA, USA, June 23 –25, 2003, Proceedings (Vol. 2680). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

Bouquet, P., Serafini, L., Brézillon, P., Benerecetti, M., and Castellani, F. (eds.) (1999). Modeling and Using Context: Second International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT’99, Trento, Italy, September 9 –11, 1999, Proceedings (Vol. 1688). Heidelberg: Springer Science and Business Media.Google Scholar

Brézillon, P., Turner, R., and Penco, C. (eds.). (2017). Modeling and Using Context: 10th International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT 2017, Paris, France, June 20 –23,2017, Proceedings (Vol. 10257). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Clark, B. (2013). Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

De Beaugrande, R. A. and Dressler, W. (1981). Einführung in die Textlinguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. (1994). Negative Interaktionen: Kommunikative Strategien im britischen Englisch und interkulturelle Inferenzen. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. and Akman, V. (2002). Contexts of social action: Guest editors’ introduction. Language and Communication, 22(4), 391–402.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. (2004). Recontextualizing Context: Grammaticality Meets Appropriateness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. (2007a). Reformulation and common grounds. In Fetzer, A. and Fischer, K., eds., Lexical Markers of Common Grounds. London: Elsevier, pp. 157–179.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. (2007b). Challenges in political interviews: An intercultural analysis. In Fetzer, A. and Lauerbach, G., eds., Political Discourse in the Media: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 163–196.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. (2010). Contexts in context: Micro meets macro. In Tanskanen, S.-K., Helasvuo, M.-L., Johansson, M., Karhukorpi, J., and Raitaniemi, M., eds., Discourses in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–31.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. (2011). “Here is the difference, here is the passion, here is the chance to be part of a great change”: Strategic context importation in political discourse. In Fetzer, A. and Oishi, E., eds., Contexts in Context: Parts Meet Whole? Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 115–146.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. (2012). Contexts in interaction: Relating pragmatic wastebaskets. In Finkbeiner, R., Meibauer, J., and Schumacher, P., eds., What Is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–127.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. (2017). Context. In Huang, Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 259–276.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. (2018). Discourse pragmatics: Communicative action meets discourse analysis. In Ilie, C. and Norrick, N., eds., Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 33–57.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. (2020). And I quote: Forms and functions of quotations in Prime Minister’s Questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 157, 89–100.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. (2021). Computer-mediated discourse in context: Pluralism of communicative action and discourse common ground. In Chaoqun, X., Yus, F., and Haberland, H., eds., Approaches to Internet Pragmatics: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 47–74.Google Scholar

Finkbeiner, R., Meibauer, J., and Schumacher, R. (eds.) (2012). What Is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Givón, T. (2005). Context as Other Minds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. and Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar

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

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

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

Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Contextualization and understanding. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 229–252.Google Scholar

Gumperz, J. J. (1996). The linguistic and cultural relativity of inference. In Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 374–406.Google Scholar

Gumperz, J. J. (2003). Response essay. In Eerdmans, S., Prevignano, C., and Thibault, P. J., eds., Language and Interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–126.Google Scholar

Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language form and communicative practices. In Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 232–270.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Huang, Y. (2014). Pragmatics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Jaffe, A. (2009). Entextualization, mediatization and authentication: Orthographic choice in media transcripts. Text and Talk, 29(5), 571–594.Google Scholar

Janney, R. W. (2002). Cotext as context: Vague answers in court. Language and Communication, 22(4), 457–475.Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, K. (2005). Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Kirkham, S. and Moore, E. (2016). Constructing social meaning in political discourse: Phonetic variation and verb processes in Ed Miliband’s speeches. Language in Society, 45 (1), 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. (1988). Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In Drew, P. and Wootton, A., eds., Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 161–227.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. (1995). Interactional bias in human thinking. In Goody, E., ed., Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 221–260.Google Scholar

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

Levinson, S. (2003). Contextualizing “contextualization cues.” In Eerdmans, S., C. Prevignano, and P. J. Thibault, eds., Language and Interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 31–40.Google Scholar

Linell, P. (1998). Approaching Dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Meierkord, C. and Fetzer, A. (2002). Introduction: Sequence, sequencing, sequential organization and sequentiality. In Fetzer, A. and Meierkord, C., eds., Rethinking Sequentiality: Linguistics Meets Conversational Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar

Nyan, T. (2016). Context Construction as Mediated by Discourse Markers: An Adaptive Approach. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Park, J. S. Y. and Bucholtz, M. (2009). Introduction. Public transcripts: Entextualization and linguistic representation in institutional contexts, Text and Talk, 5, 485–502.Google Scholar

Penco, C. (1999). Objective and cognitive context. In P. Bouquet, L. Serafini, P. Brézillon, M. Benerecetti, and F. Castellani, eds., 2nd International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context, Context’99, Proceedings. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 270–283.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Between macro and micro: Contexts and other connections. In Alexander, J., B. Giesen, R. Münch, and N. J. Smelser, eds., The Micro-Macro Link. Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 207–234.Google Scholar

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

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Terkourafi, M. (2009). On de-limiting context. In Bergs, A. and Diewald, G., eds., Context and Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–42.Google Scholar

Terkourafi, M. (2019). Coming to grips with variation in sociocultural interpretations: Methodological considerations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 50(10), 1198–1215.Google Scholar

Thibault, P. (2003). Contextualization and social meaning-making practices. In Eerdmans, S., Prevignano, C., and Thibault, P. J., eds., Language and Interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 41–62.Google Scholar

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

Voltolini, Alberto. (2021). A contextualist treatment of negative existentials. IntercultPragmatics, 18(3), 415–424.Google Scholar

Weizman, E. (2007). Quantity scales: Towards culture-specific profiles of discourse norms. In Grein, M. and Weigand, E., eds., Dialogue and Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 141–152.Google Scholar

Baird, R., Baker, W., and Kitazawa, M. (2014). The complexity of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(1), 171–196.Google Scholar

Bazzanella, C. and Damiano, R. (1999). The interactional handling of misunderstanding in everyday conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(6), 817–836.Google Scholar

Björkman, B. (2011). Pragmatic strategies in English as an academic lingua franca: Ways of achieving communicative effectiveness. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 950–964.Google Scholar

Björkman, B. (2014). An analysis of polyadic English as a lingua franca (ELF) speech: A communicative strategies framework. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 122–138.Google Scholar

Bremer, K., Roberts, C., Vasseur, M-T., Simonot, M., and Broeder, P. (1996). Achieving Understanding: Discourse in Intercultural Encounters. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Bührig, K. and ten Thije, J. D. (2006). Beyond Misunderstanding: The Linguistic Analyses of Intercultural Communication. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Cogo, A. (2009). Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A study of pragmatic strategies. In Mauranen, Anna and Ranta, Elina, eds., English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 254–273.Google Scholar

Cogo, A. (2010). Strategic use and perceptions of English as a lingua franca. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 46(3), 295–312.Google Scholar

Cogo, A. (2012). ELF and superdiversity: A case study of ELF multilingual practices from a business context. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(2), 287–313.Google Scholar

Cogo, A. (2015). English as a lingua franca: Descriptions, domains and applications. In Bowles, H. and Cogo, A., eds., International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca: Pedagogical Insights. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar

Cogo, A. and House, J. (2017). Intercultural pragmatics. In Barron, A., Gu, Y., and Steen, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. London: Routledge, pp. 168–183.Google Scholar

Cogo, A. and House, J. (2018). The pragmatics of ELF. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W., and Dewey, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge, pp. 210–223.Google Scholar

Cogo, A. and Pitzl, M.-L. (2016). Pre-empting and signaling non-understanding in ELF. ELT Journal, 70(3), 339–345.Google Scholar

Dascal, M. (1999). Introduction: Some questions about misunderstanding. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(6), 753–762.Google Scholar

Dascal, M., and Berenstein, I. (1987). Two modes of understanding: Comprehending and grasping. Language and Communication, 7(2), 139–151.Google Scholar

Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On “lingua franca” English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(2), 237–259.Google Scholar

Firth, A. (2009). The lingua franca factor. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6, 147–170.Google Scholar

Gass, S. and Varonis, E. (1991). Miscommunication in nonnative speaker discourse. In Coupland, N., Giles, H., and Wiemann, J. M., eds., Miscommunication and Problematic Talk. London: Sage, pp. 121–145.Google Scholar

Hindmarsh, J., Reynolds, P., and Dunne, S. (2011). Exhibiting understanding: The body in apprentices. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 489–503.Google Scholar

House, J. (2002). Communicating in English as a lingua franca. In Foster-Cohen, S. H., Ruthenberg, T., and Poschen, M.-L., eds., EUROSLA Yearbook 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 243–261.Google Scholar

House, J., Kasper, G., and Ross, S. (2003). Misunderstanding talk. In House, J., Kasper, G., and Ross, S., eds., Misunderstanding in Social Life: Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk. London: Longman, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar

Hülmbauer, C. (2009). “We don’t take the right way. We just take the way that we think you will understand”: The shifting relationship between correctness and effectiveness in In, ELF Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E., eds., English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 323–347.Google Scholar

Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Hynninen, N. (2011). The practice of “mediation” in English as a lingua franca interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 965–977.Google Scholar

Jafari, J. (2021). Communicating Strategically in English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus Driven Investigation. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Jenks, C. J. (2012). Doing being reprehensive: Some interactional features of English as a lingua franca in a chat room. Applied Linguistics, 33(4), 386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kappa, K. (2016). Exploring solidarity and consensus in English as lingua franca interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 95, 16–33.Google Scholar

Kaur, J. (2009). Pre-empting problems of understanding in English as a lingua franca. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E., eds., English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 107–125.Google Scholar

Kaur, J. (2010). Achieving mutual understanding in world Englishes. World Englishes, 29(2), 192–208.Google Scholar

Kaur, J. (2011). Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca: Some sources of misunderstanding. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(1), 93–116.Google Scholar

Kaur, J. (2012). Saying it again: Enhancing clarity in English as a lingua franca (ELF) talk through self-repetition. Text and Talk, 32(5), 593–613.Google Scholar

Kaur, J. (2017). Ambiguity related misunderstanding and clarity enhancing practices in ELF communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 25–47.Google Scholar

Kaur, J. (2019). Communication strategies in English as a lingua franca interaction. In Peters, M. A. and Heraud, R., eds., Encyclopedia of Educational Innovation (living ed.). Singapore: Springer, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar

Kaur, J. (2021). Applying conversation analysis to ELF interaction data. In Murata, K., ed., ELF Research Methods and Approaches to Data and Analyses. London: Routledge, pp. 161–178.Google Scholar

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

Kecskes, I. (2018). Intercultural pragmatics. In Liedtke, F. and Tuchen, A., eds., Handbuch Pragmatik. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler Verlag, pp. 140–148.Google Scholar

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

Koole, T. and ten Thije, J. D. (2001). The reconstruction of intercultural discourse: Methodological considerations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(4), 571–587.Google Scholar

Koschmann, T. (2011). Understanding understanding in action. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 435–437.Google Scholar

Kurhila, S. (2001). Correction in talk between native and non-native speaker. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1083–1110.Google Scholar

Lichtkoppler, J. (2007). “Male. Male.” – “Male?” – “The sex is male.” – The role of repetition in English as a lingua franca conversations. Vienna English Working Papers, 16(1), 39–65. www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/views_0701_pdf (retrieved May 16, 2020).Google Scholar

Matsumoto, Y. (2011). Successful ELF communications and implications for ELT: Sequential analysis of ELF pronunciation negotiation strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 97–114.Google Scholar

Matsumoto, Y. (2018a). “Because we are peers, we actually understand”: Third-party participant assistance in English as a lingua franca classroom interactions. TESOL Quarterly, 52(4), 845–876.Google Scholar

Matsumoto, Y. (2018b). Functions of laughter in English-as-a-lingua-franca classrooms: A multimodal ensemble of verbal and non-verbal interactional resources at miscommunication moments. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 7(2), 229–260.Google Scholar

Mauranen, A. (2006). Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177, 123–150.Google Scholar

Mauranen, A. (2007). Hybrid voices: English as the lingua franca of academics. In Flottum, K., ed., Language and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 243–259.Google Scholar

Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mauranen, A. (2018). Conceptualising ELF. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W., and Dewey, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge, pp. 7–24.Google Scholar

Meierkord, C. (1998). Lingua franca English: Characteristics of successful non-native-/non-native-speaker discourse. Erfurt Electronic Studies in English, 7, 98. http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/edoc/ia/eese/eese.html (retrieved July 21, 2020)Google Scholar

Meierkord, C. (2000). Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction: An analysis of non-native/non-native small talk conversations in English. Linguistik Online, 5 (1),00. http://linguistik-online.com (accessed July 21, 2020).Google Scholar

Mondada, L. (2011). Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 542–552.Google Scholar

Mustajoki, A. (2017). Why is miscommunication more common in everyday life than in lingua franca conversation? In Kecskes, I and Assimakopoulos, S, eds., Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55–74.Google Scholar

Norrick, N. R. (1987). Functions of repetition in conversation. Text, 7(3), 245–264.Google Scholar

Piantadosi, S., Tilly, H., and Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122, 280–291.Google Scholar

Pietikäinen, K. (2018a). Misunderstanding and ensuring understanding in private ELF talk. Applied Linguistics, 39(2), 188–212.Google Scholar

Pietikäinen, K. (2018b). Silence that speaks: The local inferences of withholding a response in intercultural couples’ conflicts. Journal of Pragmatics, 129, 76–89.Google Scholar

Pitzl, M-L. (2005). Non-understanding in English as a lingua franca: Examples from a business context. Vienna English Working Papers, 14, 50–71. http://anglistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/views_0802.pdf (retrieved May 12, 2020)Google Scholar

Pötzl, U. and Seidlhofer, B. (2006). In and on their own terms: The “habitat” factor in English as a lingua franca interactions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177, 151–176.Google Scholar

Robles, J. S. (2017). Misunderstanding as a resource in interaction. Pragmatics, 27(1), 57–86.Google Scholar

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar

Samovar, L. A. and Porter, R. E. (1991). Communication between Cultures. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar

Sarangi, S. (1994). Intercultural or not? Beyond celebration of cultural differences in miscommunication analysis. Pragmatics, 4(3), 409–427.Google Scholar

Sato, T., Yujobo, Y. J., Okada, T., and Ogane, E. (2019). Communication strategies employed by low-proficiency users: Possibilities for ELF-informed pedagogy. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 8(1), 9–35.Google Scholar

Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. (1987). Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics, 25, 201–218.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. and Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7, 289–327.Google Scholar

Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural Communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Taguchi, N. and Ishihara, N. (2018). The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca: Research and pedagogy in the era of globalization. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 80–101.Google Scholar

Taylor, T. J. (1986). Do you understand? Criteria of understanding in verbal interaction. Language and Communication, 6(3), 171–180.Google Scholar

Ten Thije, J. D. (2006). Beyond misunderstanding. Introduction. In Buhrig, K, and ten Thije, J. D, eds., Beyond Misunderstanding. The Linguistic Analyses of Intercultural Communication. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar

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

Vendler, Z. (1994). Understanding misunderstanding. In Jamieson, D., ed., Language, Mind and Art. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 9–21.Google Scholar

Vettorel, P. (2018). ELF and communication strategies: Are they taken into account in ELT materials? RELC Journal, 49(1), 58–73.Google Scholar

Weigand, E. (1999). Misunderstanding: The standard case. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 763–785.Google Scholar

Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: A Comparative and Critical Introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Zaefferer, D. (1977). Understanding misunderstanding: A proposal for an explanation of reading choices. Journal of Pragmatics, 1(4), 329–346.Google Scholar

Baker, W. (2015). Culture and Identity through English as a Lingua Franca: Rethinking Concepts and Goals in Intercultural Communication. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Baker, W. (2018). English as a lingua franca and intercultural communication. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W., and Dewey, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge, pp. 25–36.Google Scholar

Black, M. (1993). More about metaphor. In Ortony, A., ed., Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–41.Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. (1977). Idioms have relations. Forum Linguisticum, 2(2), 157–169.Google Scholar

Busch, B. (2017). Expanding the notion of the linguistic repertoire: On the concept of Spracherleben – the lived experience of language. Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 340–358.Google Scholar

Cameron, L. (1999a). Identifying and describing metaphor in spoken discourse. In Cameron, L. and Low, G. D., eds., Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 105–132.Google Scholar

Cameron, L. (1999b). Operationalising “metaphor” for applied linguistic research. In Cameron, L. and Low, G. D., eds., Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–28.Google Scholar

Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar

Carter, R. (2004). Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk. Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cogo, A. (2010). Strategic use and perceptions of English as a lingua franca. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 46(3), 295–312.Google Scholar

Cogo, A. (2018). ELF and multilingualism. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W., and Dewey, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge, pp. 357–368.Google Scholar

Cogo, A. (2021). ELF and translanguaging: Covert and overt resources in a transnational workplace. In Murata, K., ed., ELF Research Methods and Approaches to Data and Analyses: Theoretical and Methodological Underpinnings. London: Routledge, pp. 38–54.Google Scholar

Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2006). Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic motives to lexico-grammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 59–93.Google Scholar

Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2012). Analyzing English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-Driven Investigation. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Cowie, A. P. (ed.) (1998). Phraseology. Theory, Analysis, and Applications. Oxford: Claredon.Google Scholar

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In Sternberg, R., ed., Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 313–335.Google Scholar

Cutting, J. (2015). Pragmatics: A Resource Book for Students, 3rd ed. (Routledge English Language Introductions). Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar

ELFA 2008. The Corpus of English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings. Director: Anna Mauranen. www.helsinki.fi/elfa.Google Scholar

Erman, B. and Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1), 29–62.Google Scholar

Firth, A. (2009). The lingua franca factor. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 147–170.Google Scholar

Franceschi, V. (2013). Figurative language and ELF: Idiomaticity in cross-cultural interaction in university settings. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(1), 75–99.Google Scholar

Goatly, A. (1997). The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Granger, S. and Meunier, F. (eds.) (2008). Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Grant, L. and Bauer, L. (2004). Criteria for re-defining idioms: Are we barking up the wrong tree? Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 38–61.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Hanks, P. (2006). Metaphoricity is gradable. In Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S. T., eds., Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 17–35.Google Scholar

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

Kalocsai, K. (2014). Communities of Practice and English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Kaur, J. (2017). Ambiguity related misunderstanding and clarity enhancing practices in ELF communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 25–47.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2007). Formulaic language in Franca, English Lingua. In Kecskes, I. and Horn, L. R., eds., Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 191–219.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2019). English as a Lingua Franca: The Pragmatic Perspective. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kimura, D. and Canagarajah, S. (2018). Translingual practice and ELF. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W., and Dewey, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge, pp. 295–308.Google Scholar

Langlotz, A. (2006). Idiomatic Creativity: A Cognitive-Linguistic Model of Idiom-Representation and Idiom-Variation in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

“Lockdown.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lockdown (retrieved November 26, 2020).Google Scholar

Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mondada, L. (2004). Ways of “doing being plurilingual” in international work meetings. In Gardner, R. and Wagner, J., eds., Second Language Conversations. London: Continuum, pp. 18–39.Google Scholar

Moon, R. (1998). Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-Based Approach. Oxford: Claredon Press.Google Scholar

Mortensen, J. (2017). Transient multilingual communities as a field of investigation: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 27(3), 271–288.Google Scholar

Mortensen, J. (2020). Lingua franca scenarios. In Tusting, K., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Ethnography. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 299–311.Google Scholar

Musolff, A., MacArthur, F., and Pagani, G. (eds.) (2015). Metaphor and Intercultural Communication. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Pitzl, M.-L. (2009). “We should not wake up any dogs”: Idiom and metaphor in ELF. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E., eds., English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 299–322.Google Scholar

Pitzl, M.-L. (2010). English as a Lingua Franca in International Business: Resolving Miscommunication and Reaching Shared Understanding. Saarbrücken: VDM.Google Scholar

Pitzl, M.-L. (2012). Creativity meets convention: Idiom variation and re-metaphorization in ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), 27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pitzl, M.-L. (2013). Creativity in language use. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics: 2013 Installment. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar

Pitzl, M.-L. (2016). World Englishes and creative idioms in English as a lingua franca. World Englishes, 35(2), 293–309.Google Scholar

Pitzl, M.-L. (2017). Communicative “success,” creativity and the need for de-mystifying L1 use: Some thoughts on ELF and ELT. Lingue e Linguaggi, 24, 37–46.Google Scholar

Pitzl, M.-L. (2018a). Creativity in English as a Lingua Franca: Idiom and Metaphor. Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Pitzl, M.-L. (2018b). Transient International Groups (TIGs): Exploring the group and development dimension of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 7(1), 25–58.Google Scholar

Pitzl, M.-L. (2019). Investigating Communities of Practices (CoPs) and Transient International Groups (TIGs) in BELF contexts. Iperstoria, 13(Spring/Summer), 5–14.Google Scholar

Pitzl, M.-L. (2021). Tracing the emergence of situational multilingual practices in a BELF meeting: Micro-diachronic analysis and implications of corpus design. In Murata, K., ed., ELF Research Methods and Approaches to Data and Analyses: Theoretical and Methodological Underpinnings. London: Routledge, pp. 97–125.Google Scholar

Pitzl, M.-L. (2022). Multilingual creativity and emerging norms in interaction: Towards a methodology for micro-diachronic analysis. In Mortensen, J. and Kraft, K., eds., Norms and the Study of Language in Social Life. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

“Quagmire.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quagmire (retrieved on October 30, 2020).Google Scholar

Prodromou, L. (2008). English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-based Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Seidlhofer, B. (2009). Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a Lingua Franca. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 195–215.Google Scholar

Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Seidlhofer, B. and Widdowson, H. G. (2007). Idiomatic variation and change in English: The idiom principle and its realizations. In Smit, U., Dollinger, S., Hüttner, J., Kaltenböck, G., and Lutzky, U., eds., Tracing English through Time: Explorations in Language Variation (Festschrift for Herbert Schendl, Austrian Studies in English vol. 95). Vienna: Braumüller, pp. 359–374.Google Scholar

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

Skandera, P. (ed.) (2007). Phraseology and Culture in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Swan, M. (2012). ELF and EFL: Are they really different? Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(2), 379–389.Google Scholar

Vettorel, P. (2014). English as a Lingua Franca in Wider Networking: Blogging Practices. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Vetchinnikova, S. (2019). Phraseology and the Advanced Language Learner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

VOICE. (2013). The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version 2.0 online and version 2.0 XML). https://voice.acdh.oeaw.ac.at (retrieved on December 21, 2020).Google Scholar

Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied linguistics, 39(1), 9–30.Google Scholar

Widdowson, H. G. (1996). Linguistics (Oxford Introductions to Language Study). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Widdowson, H. G. (2004). Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Widdowson, H. G. (2008). Language creativity and the poetic function. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 503–508.Google Scholar

Widdowson, H. (2015). ELF and the pragmatics of language variation. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(2), 359–372.Google Scholar

Zhu, H. (2011). Introduction: Themes and issues in the study of language and intercultural communication. In Zhu, H, ed., The Language and Intercultural Communication Reader. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar

Zhu, H. (2015). Negotiation as the way of engagement in intercultural and lingua franca communication: Frames of reference and interculturality. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(1), 63–90.Google Scholar

Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.Google Scholar

Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.Google Scholar

Beger, A. (2011). Deliberate metaphors? An exploration of the choice and functions of metaphors in US-American College lectures. Metaphorik.de, 20, 39–60.Google Scholar

Beger, A. (2016). Different functions of (deliberate) metaphor in teaching scientific concepts. Metaphorik.de, 26, 57–84.Google Scholar

Birdsell, B. (2017). Creative metaphor production in a first and second language and the role of creativity. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar

Blasko, D. G. and Connine, C. M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 295–308.Google Scholar

Boers, F. and Littlemore, J. (2000). Cognitive style variables in participants’ explanations of conceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(3), 177–187.Google Scholar

Bolognesi, M. and Steen, G. (eds.) (2019). Perspectives on Abstract Concepts: From Cognitive Processing to Semantic Representation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bowdle, B. F. and Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216.Google Scholar

Buccino, G., Binkofski, F., Fink, G. R., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., Seitz, R. J., Zilles, K., Rizzolatti, G., and Freund, H. J. (2001). Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: an fMRI study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 13(2), 400–404.Google Scholar

Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Cameron, L. and Deignan, A. (2003). Combining large and small corpora to investigate tuning devices around metaphor in spoken discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(3), 149–160.Google Scholar

Carrol, G. and Conklin, K. (2014). Getting your wires crossed: Evidence for fast processing of L1 idioms in an L2. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(4), 784–797.Google Scholar

Carrol, G. and Conklin, K. (2017). Cross language lexical priming extends to formulaic units: Evidence from eye-tracking suggests that this idea “has legs.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(2), 299–317.Google Scholar

Carrol, G., Littlemore, J. and Dowens, M. G. (2018). Of false friends and familiar foes: Comparing native and non-native understanding of figurative phrases. Lingua, 204, 21–44.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 351–367.Google Scholar

Casasanto, D. (2014). Development of metaphorical thinking: The role of language. In Borkent, M., Hinnell, J., and Dancygier, B., eds., Language and the Creative Mind. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 3–18.Google Scholar

Charteris‐Black, J. (2002). Second language figurative proficiency: A comparative study of Malay and English. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 104–133.Google Scholar

Charteris-Black, J. (2012). Forensic deliberations on “purposeful metaphor.” Metaphor and the Social World, 2 (1), 1–21.Google Scholar

Charteris-Black, J. and Musolff, A. (2003). “Battered hero” or “innocent victim”? A comparative study of metaphors for euro trading in British and German financial reporting. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 153–176.Google Scholar

Chiappe, D. L. and Kennedy, J. M. (1999). Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similies, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6(4), 668–676.Google Scholar

Cieślicka, A. (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by L2 speakers. Second Language Research, 22, 115–144.Google Scholar

Cieślicka, A. B. (2015). Idiom acquisition and processing by second/foreign language learners. In Heredia, R. R. and Cieślicka, A. B., eds., Bilingual Figurative Language Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 208–244.Google Scholar

Clausner, T. C. and Croft, W. (1997), Productivity and schematicity in metaphors. Cognitive Science, 21, 247–282.Google Scholar

Cuccio, V. (2018). Attention to Metaphor: From Neurons to Representations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

de Vries, C., Reijnierse, W. G., and Willems, R. M. (2018). Eye movements reveal readers’ sensitivity to deliberate metaphors during narrative reading. Scientific Study of Literature, 8 (1), 135–163.Google Scholar

Duffy, S. E. and Feist, M. I. (2014). Individual differences in the interpretation of ambiguous statements about time. Cognitive Linguistics, 25 (1), 29–54.Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental Spaces. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL-1981. Hanshin: Hanshin Publishing, pp. 111–138.Google Scholar

Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170.Google Scholar

Gentner, D. and Bowdle, B. (2008). Metaphor as structure-mapping. In Gibbs, R. W., Jr., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 109–128.Google Scholar

Gentner, D. and Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52 (1), 45–56.Google Scholar

Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., and Boronat, C. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In Gentner, D., Holyoak, K. J., and Kokinov, B. N., eds., The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 199–253.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. Jr., (2005). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. Jr., (2017). Metaphor Wars: Conceptual Metaphors in Human Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. (2015). Do pragmatic signals affect conventional metaphor understanding? A failed test of deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 77–87.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R., Jr. (2006), Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language, 21, 434–458.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. Jr, and Steen, G. (eds.) (1997). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 5th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Amsterdam: Benjamin Publishers.Google Scholar

Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 919–929.Google Scholar

Gkiouzepas, L. (2013). Is your ad headline high enough? The influence of orientational metaphors on affect and comprehension for print advertisements. The 12th International Conference on Research in Advertising (ICORIA). Zagreb: European Academy of Advertising.Google Scholar

Gkiouzepas, L. (2015). Metaphor-ad layout consistency effects: The moderating role of personality traits. In Advances in Advertising Research, Vol. V. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar

Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding Figurative Language. Oxford: Scholarship online.Google Scholar

Glucksberg, S. (2008). How metaphors create categories–quickly. In Gibbs, R. W., Jr., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67–83.Google Scholar

Glucksberg, S. and Haught, C. (2006). On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind and Language, 21(3), 360–378.Google Scholar

Glucksberg, S. and Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97(1), 3–18.Google Scholar

Goatly, A. (1997). The Language of Metaphors. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gola, E. and Ervas, F. (eds.) (2016). Metaphor and Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Grady, J. E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: primary metaphors and primary stress, PhD dissertation, University of Berkeley. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3g9427m2#page-1.Google Scholar

Hampe, B. (ed.) (2017). Metaphor: Embodied Cognition and Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., and Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 22(2), 301–307.Google Scholar

Jankowiak, K., Rataj, K., and Naskręcki, R. (2017). To electrify bilingualism: Electrophysiological insights into bilingual metaphor comprehension. PloS one, 12(4), e0175578.Google Scholar

Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago: University Press.Google Scholar

Jones, L. L. and Estes, Z. (2005). Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 110–124.Google Scholar

Jones, L. L. and Estes, Z. (2006). Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 18–32.Google Scholar

Keating, J. (2021). Populist discourse and active metaphors in the 2016 US presidential elections. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 499–531.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2016). Deliberate creativity and formulaic language use. In Allan, K., Capone, A., Kecskes, I., eds., Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use: Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy and Psychology. Berlin: Springer, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar

Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar

Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kövecses, Z. (2017). Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 321–347.Google Scholar

Krennmayr, T. (2011). Metaphors in Newspapers (vol. 276). Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Landau, M. J., Meier, B. P., and Keefer, L. A. (2010). A metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1045–1067.Google Scholar

Landau, M. J., Sullivan, D., and Greenberg, J. (2009). Evidence that self-relevant motives and metaphoric framing interact to influence political and social attitudes. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1421–1427.Google Scholar

Lee, E. H. and Schnall, S. (2014). The influence of social power on weight perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1719–1725.Google Scholar

Li, H. and Cao, Y. (2016). Who’s holding the moral high ground: Religiosity and the vertical conception of morality. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 178–182.Google Scholar

Littlemore, J. (2001). Metaphor as a source of misunderstanding for overseas students in academic lectures. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3), 333–351.Google Scholar

Littlemore, J. (2019). Metaphors in the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Littlemore, J. and Low, G. (2006). Figurative Thinking and Foreign Language Learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Littlemore, J., Chen, P., Barnden, J., and Koester, A. (2011). Difficulties in metaphor comprehension faced by international students whose first language is not English. Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 208–429.Google Scholar

Low, G. D. (1988). On teaching metaphor. Applied Linguistics, 9, 125–147.Google Scholar

MacArthur, F. (2016). Overt and covert uses of metaphor in the academic mentoring in English of Spanish undergraduate students at five European universities. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 14(1), 23–50.Google Scholar

Mashal, N., Borodkin, K., Maliniak, O., and Faust, M. (2015). Hemispheric involvement in native and non-native comprehension of conventional metaphors. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 35, 96–108.Google Scholar

McRae, K., Cree, G., Seidenberg, M., and McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and 44 on-living things. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 547–559.Google Scholar

Meier, B., Selbom, M., and Wygant, D. B. (2007). Failing to take the moral high ground: Psychopathy and the vertical representation of morality. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(4), 757–767.Google Scholar

Nacey, S. (2013). Metaphors in Learner English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ng, C. J. W. and Koller, V. (2013). Deliberate conventional metaphor in images: The case of corporate branding discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(3), 131–147.Google Scholar

O’Reilly, D. and Marsden, E. (2021). Eliciting and measuring L2 metaphoric competence: Three decades on from Low (1988). Applied Linguistics, 42(1), 24–59.Google Scholar

Pasma, T. (2011). Metaphor and Register Variation: The Personalization of Dutch News Discourse. Oisterwijk: Box Press.Google Scholar

Pecher, D. (2018). Curb your embodiment. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10, 501–517.Google Scholar

Pecher, D. and Zwaan, R. A. (eds.) (2005). Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Perez-Sobrino, P., Littlemore, J., and Houghton, D. (2018). The role of figurative complexity in the comprehension and appreciation of advertisements. Applied Linguistics, 40(6), 957–991.Google Scholar

Perrez, J. and Reuchamps, M. (2014). Deliberate metaphors in political discourse: The case of citizen discourse. Metaphorik.de, 25, 7–41.Google Scholar

Phillips, G. (2012). Locating metaphor candidates in specialized corpora using raw frequency and keyword lists. In MacArthur, F., Luis Oncins-Martínez, J., Sánchez-García, M., and Piquer-Píriz, A. M., eds., Metaphor in Use: Context, Culture, and Communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishers, pp. 85–106.Google Scholar

Reijnierse, G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., and Steen, G. (2019). Metaphor in communication: The distribution of potentially deliberate metaphor across register and word class. Corpora, 14(3), 301–326.Google Scholar

Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., and Steen, G. J. (2018). DMIP: A method for identifying potentially deliberate metaphor in language use. Corpus Pragmatics, 2(2), 129–147.Google Scholar

Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Semino, E. and Steen, G. J. (2008). Metaphor in literature. In Gibbs, R. W., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 232–246.Google Scholar

Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., and Schmitt, N. (2011). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research, 27, 251–272.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphors. In Gibbs, R., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 84–105.Google Scholar

Steen, G. J. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241.Google Scholar

Steen, G. J. (2009). From linguistic form to conceptual structure in five steps: Analyzing metaphor in poetry. In Brône, G. and Vandaele, J., eds., Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains and Gaps. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 197–226.Google Scholar

Steen, G. J. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor: now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 26–64.Google Scholar

Steen, G. J. (2013). Deliberate metaphor affords conscious metaphorical cognition. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1–2), 179–197.Google Scholar

Steen, G. J. (2015). Developing, testing and interpreting deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 67–72.Google Scholar

Steen, G. J. (2016). Mixed metaphor is a question of deliberateness. In Gibbs, R., ed., Mixing Metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 113–132.Google Scholar

Steen, G. J. (2017). Attention to metaphor: Where embodied cognition and social interaction can meet, but may not often do so. In Hampe, B., ed., Metaphor: Embodied Cognition and Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 279–296.Google Scholar

Steen, G. J., Dorst, A., Herrmann, B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., and Pasma, T (2010). A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and Constructions in Metaphoric Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Tay, D. (2013). Metaphor in Psychotherapy: A Descriptive and Prescriptive Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Tendahl, M. and Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2008). Complementary perspectives on metaphor: cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(11), 1823–1864.Google Scholar

Thibodeau, P. H. and Durgin, F. H. (2011). Metaphor aptness and conventionality: A processing fluency account. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(3), 206–226.Google Scholar

Vivas, L., Montefinese, M., Bolognesi, M., and Vivas, G. (2020). Core features: Measures and characterization for different languages. Cognitive Processing, 21(4), 651–667.Google Scholar

Wee, L. (2005). Constructing the source: Metaphor as a discourse strategy. Discourse Studies, 7(3), 363–384.Google Scholar

Werkmann Horvat, A., Bolognesi, M., Althaus, N., and Kohl, K. (in prep.). Attention to the source domain of linguistic, conventional metaphorical expressions: Evidence from an eye-tracking study.Google Scholar

Werkmann Horvat, A., Bolognesi, M. and Kohl, K. (2021a). Creativity is a toaster: Experimental evidence on how monolinguals vs. multilinguals process novel metaphors. Applied Linguistics, 42(1), 1–25.Google Scholar

Werkmann Horvat, A., Bolognesi, M., and Kohl, K. (2021b). Demolishing walls and myths: On the status of conventional metaphorical meaning in the L2 lexicon.Google Scholar

Zlatev, J. (2012). Cognitive Semiotics: An emerging field for the transdisciplinary study of meaning. Public Journal of Semiotics, 4(1), 2–24.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, Herbert L. and Katz, Albert N., eds., Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 21–42.Google Scholar

Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar

Blackmore, S. (1999). The Meme Machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Blake, B. J. (1994). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Butler, C. S. (2009). The Lexical Constructional Model: Genesis, strengths and challenges. In Butler, Christopher S. and Arista, Javier Martín, eds., Deconstructing Constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 117–151.Google Scholar

Butler, C. S. (2013). Constructions in the lexical constructional model. In Nolan, Brian and Diedrichsen, Elke, eds., Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 271–293.Google Scholar

Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Li, Charles N., ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 25–55.Google Scholar

Clark, E. V. (2015). Common ground. In MacWhinney, Brian and O’Grady, William, eds., The Handbook of Language Emergence. Oxford: Wiley and Sons, pp. 328–353.Google Scholar

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

Clark, H. H. and Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge. In Joshi, Aravind K., Webber, Bonnie L., and Sag, Ivan A., eds., Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 10–63.Google Scholar

Colston, H. L. (2005). Social and cultural influences on figurative and indirect language. In Colston, Herbert L. and Katz, Albert N., eds., Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 99–130.Google Scholar

Colston, H. L. (2008). A new look at common ground: Memory, egocentrism, and joint meaning. In Kecskes, Istvan and Mey, Jacob L., eds., Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 151–187.Google Scholar

Conte, R. (2000). Memes through (social) minds. In Aunger, Robert, ed., Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 83–120.Google Scholar

Coulmas, F. (1981). Conversational Routines: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dawkins, R. [1976] (1989). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Diedrichsen, E. (2006). Ergativität und Diskurs. Berlin: LIT.Google Scholar

Diedrichsen, E. (2013a). Constructions as memes: Interactional function as cultural convention beyond the words. In Liedtke, Frank and Schulze, Cornelia, eds., Beyond Words. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 283–305.Google Scholar

Diedrichsen, E. (2013b). From idioms to sentence structures and beyond: The theoretical scope of the concept “construction.” In Nolan, Brian and Diedrichsen, Elke, eds., Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in Grammars. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 295–330.Google Scholar

Diedrichsen, E. (2020a). On the interaction of core and emergent common ground in Internet memes. Internet Pragmatics, 3(2), 223–259.Google Scholar

Diedrichsen, E. (2020b). Linguistic expressions as cultural units: How a cultural approach to language can facilitate the description of modern means of communication and expression. International Journal of Language and Culture, 7(1), 121–145.Google Scholar

Diedrichsen, E. (2022). Internet Memes – Funktionen und Motivationen. To appear in Lars Bülow, Konstanze Marx, Simon Meier-Vieracker and Robert Mroczynski (eds.), Digitale Pragmatik (Digitale Linguistik). Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Du Bois, J. W. (1985). Competing motivations. In Haiman, John, ed., Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 343–365.Google Scholar

Du Bois, J. W. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 63(4), 805–855.Google Scholar

Dynel, M. (2016). “I has seen image macros!” Advice animal memes as visual-verbal jokes. International Journal of Communication, 10, 660–688.Google Scholar

Eco, U. (1976). A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington/London: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Edmonds, B. (2005). The revealed poverty of the gene-meme analogy: Why memetics per se has failed to produce substantive results. Journal of Memetics: Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission, 9(1), 1–4.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. (2008). Common ground as a resource for social affiliation. In Kecskes, Istvan and Mey, Jacob, eds., Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 223–254.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. and Fischer, K. (eds.) (2007). Lexical Markers of Common Ground. Oxford/Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Fretheim, T. and Gundel, J. K. (eds.) (1996). Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Gerrig, R. J. and Horton, W. S. (2005). Contextual expressions and common ground. In Colston, Herbert L. and Katz, Albert N., eds., Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 43–70.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. Jr, W.. and Colston, H. L. (2019). The emergence of common ground. In Giora, Rachel and Haugh, Michael, eds., Doing Pragmatics Interculturally: Cognitive, Philosophical, and Sociopragmatic Perspectives. Berlin/Boston: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 13–29.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row. Repr. (1986), Northeastern University Press edition, York, PA: Maple Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gonzalves-Garcia, F. and Butler, C. S. (2006). Mapping functional-cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 39–95.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational Organization. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

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

Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., and Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274–307.Google Scholar

Haftka, B. (1978). Bekanntheit und Neuheit als Kriterium für die Anordnung von Satzgliedern. Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 15, 157–164.Google Scholar