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

Bach, K. (1999). The myth of conventional implicatures. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(4), 327–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barwise, J., and Perry, J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Beaver, D., and Zeevat, H. (2007). Accommodation. In Ramchand, G. and Reiss, C. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces (pp. 503–538). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Blochowiak, J., and Castelain, T. (2018). How logical is natural language conjunction? An experimental investigation of the French conjunction et. In Saint-Germier, P. (ed.), Language, Evolution and Mind: Essays in Honour of Anne Reboul (pp. 97–125). London: College PublicationsGoogle Scholar

Blochowiak, J., and Grisot, C. (2018). The pragmatics of descriptive and metalinguistic negation: experimental data from French. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blochowiak, J., Castelain, T., Rodriguez-Villagra, O. A., and Musolino, J. (2022). If and only if people were logical! The effect of pragmatic enrichment on reasoning with abstract and realistic materials. Journal of Pragmatics, 197, 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonnefon, J.-F., Feeney, A., and Villejoubert, G. (2009). When some is actually all: Scalar inference in face-threatening contexts. Cognition, 112, 249–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Breheny, R., Katsos, N., and Williams, J. (2006). Are generalized conversational implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition, 100(3), 434–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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

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

Chierchia, G. (2013). Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doran, R., Baker, R., McNabb, Y., Larson, M., and Ward, G. (2009). On the non-unified nature of scalar implicature: An empirical investigation. International Review of Pragmatics, 1, 211–248.Google Scholar

Fox, D. (2007). Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Sauerland, U. and Stateva, P. (eds.), Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics (pp. 71–120). Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frege, G. [1892] (1948). Sense and reference. The Philosophical Review, 57(3): 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicatures, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Gotzner, N., Solt, S., and Benz, A. (2018). Scalar diversity, negative strengthening, and adjectival semantics. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1659. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01659.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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

Grice, H. P. (1989). Meaning. In Studies in the Way of Words. (pp. 213–223). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (GURT’84) (pp. 11–42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language, 61(1), 121–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horn, L. R. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (2004). Implicature. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. 1989. Demonstratives. In Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H. (eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Karttunen, L. and Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicatures. In Oh, C.-K. and Dinneen, D. A. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. XI: Presuppositions (pp. 1–56). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Korta, K., and Perry, J. (2012). Critical Pragmatics: An Inquiry into Reference and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. (1991). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: A Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mazzarella, D. (2015). Politeness, relevance and scalar inferences. Journal of Pragmatics, 79, 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moeschler, J. (2018). A set of semantic and pragmatic criteria for descriptive vs. metalinguistic negation. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 58. 1–30. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moeschler, J. (2019). Non-Lexical Pragmatics: Time, Causality and Logical Words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moeschler, J. (2021). Why Language? What Pragmatics Tells Us about Language and Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Noh, E. J., Choo, H., and Koh, S. (2013). Processing metalinguistic negation: Evidence from eye-tracking experiments. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Noveck, I. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Investigations of scalar implicatures. Cognition, 78(2), 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Noveck, I. (2018). Experimental Pragmatics: The Making of a Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Noveck, I., and Sperber, D., eds. (2004). Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Noveck, I., and Reboul, A. (2008). Experimental pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 425–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Noveck, I., Chevallier, C., Chevaux, F., Musolino, J., and Bott, L. (2009). Children enrichment of conjunctive sentences in context. In P. De Brabanter M. and M. Kissine (eds.), Current Research in the Semantics/ Pragmatics Interface (pp. 211–234) Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar

Papafragou, A., and Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics/pragmatics interface. Cognition, 86, 253–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Potts, C. (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Reboul, A. (2019). Particularized Conversational Implicatures: Why there are Conversational Implicatures. In Zufferey, S., Moeschler, J., and Reboul, A., Implicatures (pp. 67–87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarPubMed

Recanati, F. (1994). Contextualism and anti-contextualism in the philosophy of language. In Tsohatzidis, S. L. (ed.), Foundations of Speech Act Theory (pp. 156–166). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Sadock, J. (1978). On testing for conversational implicature. In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. IX: Pragmatics (pp. 281–297). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

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

Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Stalnaker, R. (1977). Pragmatic Presuppositions. In Rogers, A., Wall, B., and Murphy, J. P. (eds.), Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions and Implicatures (pp. 135–147). Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. IX: Pragmatics (pp. 315–332). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Strawson, P. (1950). On referring. Mind, 59(235), 320–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Terkourafi, M., Weissman, B., and Roy, J. (2020). Different scalar terms affected by face differently. International Review of Pragmatics, 12, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Tiel, B., Pankratz, E., and Sun, C. (2019). Scales and scalarity: Processing scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 105, 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilson, D., and Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zhan, L. (2018). Scalar and ignorance inferences are both computed immediately upon encountering the sentential connective: The online processing of sentences with disjunction using the visual world paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 61. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Zufferey, S., Moeschler, J., and Reboul, A. (2019). Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Antonopoulou, E., and Nikiforidou, K. (2011). Construction grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10), 2594–2609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Antonopoulou, E., Nikiforidou, K., and Tsakona, V. (2015). Construction grammar and discoursal incongruity. In Brône, G., Feyaerts, K. and Veale, T., eds., Cognitive Linguistics Meets Humor Research: Current trends and new developments. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 289–314.Google Scholar

Archer, D. (2017). Context and historical (socio-)pragmatics 20 years on. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 18(2), 315–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Archer, D., and Culpeper, J. (2009). Identifying key sociophilological usage in plays and trial proceedings (1640–1760): An empirical approach via corpus annotation. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 10(2), 286–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Chang, Y.-F. (2011). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The relation between pragmalinguistic competence and sociopragmatic competence. Language Sciences, 33(5), 786–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chang, W.-L. M., and Haugh, M. (2017). Intercultural communicative competence and emotion among second language learners of Chinese. In Kecskes, I. and Sun, C. (eds.), Key Issues in Chinese as a Second Language Research (pp. 267–286). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Citron, F., and Goldberg, A. (2014). Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(11), 2585–2595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Corbett, J. (2006). Genre and genre analysis. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 26–32). Boston: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Devlin, A. M. (2019). The interaction between duration of study abroad, diversity of loci of learning and sociopragmatic variation patterns: A comparative study. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diewald, G. (2015) Modal particles in different communicative types. Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 218–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fetzer, A. (2011). Pragmatics as a linguistic concept. In Bublitz, W. and Norrick, N. R. (eds.), Foundations of Pragmatics (pp. 23–50). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar

Fillmore, Ch., Kay, P., and O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538.Google Scholar

Fischer, K. (2015). Situation in grammar or in frames? Evidence from the so-called baby talk register. Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 258–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fitzmaurice, S. M. (2009). The sociopragmatics of a lovers’ spat: The case of the eighteenth-century courtship letters of Mary Pierrepont and Edward Wortley. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 10(2), 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fried, M., and Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Fried, Μ and Östman, J.-O. (eds.), Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective (pp. 11–86). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. IX: Pragmatics (pp. 113–128). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar

Herring, S. C., Stein, D., and Virtanen, T. (2013). Introduction to the pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. In Herring, S. C., Stein, D., and Virtanen, T. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication (pp. 3–31). Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ifantidou, E. (2019). Relevance and metaphor understanding in a second language. In Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R. (eds.), Relevance: Pragmatics and Interpretation (pp. 218–30). Cambridge: Cambridge 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 (pp. 3–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jucker, A. H. (2006). Historical pragmatics. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics 2006 (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kasper, G., and Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2012). Sociopragmatics and cross-cultural and intercultural studies. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 599–616). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind (pp. 462–585). Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Levinson, S. N. (1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Talk at Work (pp. 66–100). The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar

Marmaridou, S. (2000). Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Marmaridou, S. (forthcoming). Re-cycling discourse constructions: The case of [apo NP_Acc. (ine_{3rd p. sing}.) ne/oçi] in Greek TV shows.Google Scholar

McNamara, T., and Roever, C. (2006). The social dimension of proficiency: How testable is it? Language Learning, 56(2): 43–79.Google Scholar

Morris, Ch. W. (1938). Foundations of the Theory of Signs. In Carnap, N. O. R. and Morris, C. W. (eds.), International Encyclopaedia of Unified Science (Vol. I, pp. 77–138). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Moser, A., and Panaretou, E. (2011). Why a mother’s rule is not a law: The role of context in the interpretation of Greek laws. In Fetzer, A. and Oishi, E. (eds.), Context and Contexts (pp. 11–40). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nikiforidou, K. (2016). “Genre knowledge” in a constructional framework: Lexis, grammar and perspective in folk tales. In Stukker, N., Spooren, W., and Steen, G. (eds.), Genre in Language, Discourse and Cognition (pp. 331–360). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nikiforidou, K. (2018). Genre and constructional analysis. Pragmatics and Cognition, 25(3), 543–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nikiforidou, K. (2021). Grammatical variability and the grammar of genre: Constructions, conventionality, and motivation in “stage directions.” Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics (eds. Matsumoto, Y. and Iwasaki, S.), Multiplicity in Grammar: Modes, Genres and Speaker’s Knowledge, 173, 189–199.Google Scholar

Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In Östman, J.-O. and Fried, M. (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions (pp. 121–144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Piata, A. (2016). Genre “out of the box”: A conceptual integration analysis of poetic discourse. In Stukker, N., Spooren, W., and Steen, G. (eds.), Genre in Language, Discourse and Cognition (pp. 225–250). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Romero-Trillo, J. (2007). Adaptive Management in discourse: The case of involvement discourse markers in English and Spanish conversations. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 6(1), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Romero-Trillo, J., and Maguire, L. (2011). Adaptive context: The fourth element of meaning. International Review of Pragmatics, 3(2), 228–241.Google Scholar

Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22(1), 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ruppenhofer, J., and Michaelis, L. (2010). A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 158–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P., P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar

Stukker, N., Spooren, W., and Steen, G. (2016). Introduction. In Stukker, N., Spooren, W., and Steen, G. (eds.), Genre in Language, Discourse and Cognition (pp. 1–14). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Terkourafi, M. (2021). Inference and Implicature. In Haugh, M, Kadar, D. Z., and Terkourafi, M (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics (pp. 30–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar

Verschueren, J. (2021). Reflexivity and meta-awareness. In Haugh, M., Kadar, D. Z., and Terkourafi, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics (pp. 117–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Apresjan, Ju. (1992). Lexical Semantics: User’s Guide to Contemporary Russian Vocabulary. [Translation of Ju. Apresjan 1974. Leksičeskaja semantika: sinonimičeskie sredstva jazyka. (In Russ.)] Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar

Besemeres, M., and Wierzbicka, A., eds. (2007). Translating Lives: Living with Two Languages and Cultures. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar

Bhattacharyya, S. (2011). Growth Miracles and Growth Debacles: Exploring Root Causes. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bhattacharyya, S. (2020). A History of Global Capitalism: Feuding Elites and Imperial Expansion. Cham: Springer Nature.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boym, S. (1994). Common Places: Mythologies of Everyday Life in Russia. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bromhead, H. (2018). Landscape and Culture: Cross-linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bullock, D. (2012–2020). Learn These Words First: Multi-layer Dictionary for Second- Language Learners of English. https://learnthesewordsfirst.com.Google Scholar

Farrelly, N., and Wesley, M. (2018). Internationalizing Minimal English: Perils and parallels. In Goddard, C. (ed.), Minimal English for a Global World: Improved Communication Using Fewer Words, 95–112. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Selected essays by Clifford Geertz. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar

Gladkova, A. (2013a). “Is he one of ours?” The cultural semantics and ethnopragmatics of social categories in Russian. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 180–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gladkova, A. (2013b). “Intimate” talk in Russian: Human relationships and folk psychotherapy. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 33, 322–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gladkova, A. (2017). Communication modes, Russian. In Kim, Young Yun, (ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar

Gladkova, A., and Larina, T. (2018). Anna Wierzbicka, Words and the World. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 22(3), 499–520. doi: 10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-3-499-520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gladkova, A. and Romero-Trillo, J. (2014). Ain’t it beautiful? The conceptualization of beauty from an ethnopragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 140–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goddard, Cliff. (2000). Polysemy: A problem of definition. In Ravin, Y. and Leacock, C. (eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches (pp. 129–151). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Goddard, C. (2011). Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goddard, C. (2015). Verb classes and valency alternations (NSM approach), with special reference to English physical activity verbs. In Malchukov, A. and Comrie, B. (eds.), Valency Classes in the World’s Languages (pp. 1649–1680). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Goddard, C. (2016). Semantic molecules and their role in NSM lexical definitions. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 2(109), 13–34.Google Scholar

Goddard, C. (2018a). Ten Lectures on Natural Semantic Metalanguage: Exploring Language, Thought and Culture Using Simple, Translatable Words. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goddard, C. (2018b). Minimal English for a Global World: Improved Communication Using Fewer Words. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goddard, C. (2020). Natural Semantic Metalanguage. In Xu, W. and Taylor, J. R. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 93–110). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar

Goddard, C. (2021). Minimal Languages in Action. Cham: Springer Nature.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goddard, C., and Wierzbicka, , A., eds. (1994). Semantic and Lexical Universals: Theory and Empirical Findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goddard, C., and Wierzbicka, A., eds. (2002). Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings, Vols. I, II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Goddard, C., and Wierzbicka, A. (2004). Cultural scripts: What are they and what are they good for? Intercultural Pragmatics, 1–2, 153–166.Google Scholar

Goddard, C., and Wierzbicka, A. (2014). Words and Meanings: Lexical Semantics Across Domains, Languages, and Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goddard, C., and Wierzbicka, A. (2021). Semantics in the time of coronavirus: “Virus,” “bacteria,” “germs,” “disease” and related concepts. Russian Journal of Linguistics 25(1). 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howes, D. (2005). Hyperesthesia, or, the sensual logic of late capitalism. In Howes, D. (ed.), Empire of the Senses: The Sensual Culture Reader (pp. 281–303). Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar

Iordanskaja, L. (1979). The semantics of three Russian verbs of perception: Vosprinimat’ “(to) perceive,” oščuščat’ “(to) sense” and čusvstvovat’ “(to) feel.” Linguistics, 17, 825–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jordan, P. (2017). How to Start, Carry on and End Conversations: Scripts for Social Situations for People on the Autism Spectrum. London: Jessika Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar

Landes, D. (1999). The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor? London: Abacus.Google Scholar

Leibniz, G. W. (1956). Preface to an edition of Nizolius. In Philosophical Papers and Letters: A Selection, trans. and ed., with intro. by Loemker, L. E. (Vol. I, pp. 186–202). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Leibniz, G. W. [1678] (1987). The analysis of languages. In Dascal, M., Leibniz, Language, Signs and Thought: A Collection of Essays (pp. 161–165). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Levisen, C. (2012). Cultural Semantics and Social Cognition: A Case Study on the Danish Universe of Meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levisen, C. (2017). Communication modes, Danish. In Kim, Young Yun (gen. ed.), McKay-Semmler, K. L. (associate ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Levisen, C., and Waters, S., eds. (2018). Cultural Keywords in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Maley, W. (2018). Minimal English and diplomacy. In Goddard, C. (ed.), Minimal English for a Global World: Improved Communication Using Fewer Words (pp. 71–93). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marini, M. G. (2019). Languages of Care in Narrative Medicine: Words, Space and Time in the Healthcare Ecosystem. Cham: Springer Nature.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mel’čuk, I. (2016). Language: From Meaning to Text. Moscow/Boston: Academic Studies Press.Google Scholar

The Natural Semantic Metalanguage Homepage. https://intranet.secure.griffith.edu.au/schools-departments/natural-semantic-metalanguage.Google Scholar

Peeters, B., ed. (2006). Semantic Primes and Universal Grammar: Empirical Evidence from the Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pesmen, D. (2000). Russia and Soul: An Exploration. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sadow, L. (2019). An NSM-based cultural dictionary of Australian English: From theory to practice. Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University.Google Scholar

Stearns, P. (2006). Consumerism in the World History: The Global Transformation of Desire, 2nd ed. New York/London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. (1972). Semantic Primitives. (Trans. A. Wierzbicka and J. Besemeres.) Frankfurt: Athenäum Verlag.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Understanding Cultures through Their Key Words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. (2002). Russian cultural scripts: The theory of cultural scripts and its applications. Ethos, 30(4): 401–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. (2003/1991). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics, 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. (2006). English: Meaning and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. (2014). Imprisoned in English: The Hazards of English as a Default Language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. (2015). Natural Semantic Metalanguage. In Tracy, Karen (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. (2017). W co wierzą chrześcijanie? Opowieść o Bogu i o ludziach (What Christians Believe: The Story of God and People). Cracow: Znak.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. (2019). What Christians Believe: The Story of God and People in Minimal English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. (2021a). “Semantic primitives,” fifty years later. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 25(2), 317–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. (2021b). Vo čto verjat xristiane: Istorija Boga i ljudej. [What Christians Believe: The Story of God and People.] Moscow: Languages of Slavonic Cultures. (Trans. from English into Russian by Anna Gladkova.)Google Scholar

Allan, K., and Jaszczolt, K., eds. (2012). The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allott, N. (2018). Conversational implicature. In Aronoff, M. (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.205.Google Scholar

Allott, N, (2019). Scientific tractability and relevance theory. In Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R. (eds.), Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation (pp. 29–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allott, N., and Wilson, D. (2021). Chomsky and pragmatics. In Allott, N., Lohndal, T., and Rey, G. (eds.), A Companion to Chomsky (pp. 433–447). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley–Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, M. (2002). The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 361–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Assimakopoulos, S. (2017). Context selection in relevance theory. In Blochowiak, J., Grisot, C., Durrleman, S., and Laenzlinger, C. (eds.), Formal Models in the Study of Language: Applications in Interdisciplinary Contexts (pp. 221–242). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Atlas, J. (2000). Logic, Meaning, and Conversation: Semantical Underdeterminacy, Implicature, and Their Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bezuidenhout, A. (2016). What properly belongs to grammar: A response to Lepore and Stone. Inquiry, 59, 175–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cappelen, H., and Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carston, R. (1995). Quantity maxims and scalar implicature. Lingua, 96, 213–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carston, R. (1998). Informativeness, relevance, and scalar implicature. In Carston, R. and Uchida, S. (eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications (pp. 179–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Carston, R. (2012). Metaphor and the literal–non-literal distinction. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 469–492). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (2016). Linguistic conventions and the role of pragmatics. Mind and Language, 31, 612–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carston, R., and Hall, A. (2012). Implicature and explicature. In Schmid, H. J. (ed.), Cognitive Pragmatics (pp. 47–84). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond (pp. 39–103). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1992). Language and interpretation: Philosophical reflections and empirical enquiry. In Earman, J. (ed.), Inference, Explanation and Other Frustrations: Essays in the Philosophy of Science (pp. 99–128). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Google Scholar

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

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

Clark, H., and Marshall, A. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshi, A., Webber, B., and Sag, I. (eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Csibra, G. (2010). Recognizing communicative intentions in infancy. Mind and Language, 25, 141–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Csibra, G., and Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 148–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dupuy, L., Van der Henst, J.-B., Cheylus, A., and Reboul, A. (2016). Context in generalized conversational implicatures: The case of some. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(381), March 22. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eilan, N., Hoerl, C., McCormack, T., and Roessler, J., eds. (2005). Joint Attention: Communication and Other Minds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

von Fintel, K. (2008). What is presupposition accommodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives, 22: 137–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fodor, J. (1983). Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garcia-Carpintero, M. (2016). Accommodating presuppositions. Topoi, 35, 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibbs, R. (2017). Experimental pragmatics. In Huang, Y. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 310–325). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Geurts, B. (2010). Quantity Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 66: 377–388. Repr. in Grice (1989), pp. 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1967). Logic and conversation. William James Lectures, Harvard University. Repr. in Grice (1989), pp. 1–143.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1969). Utterer’s meaning and intentions, Philosophical Review, 78, 147–177. Repr. in Grice (1989), pp. 86–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Harris, D. (2017). Review of Imagination and Convention: Distinguishing Grammar and Inference in Language by E. Lepore and M. Stone. Philosophical Review, 26, 554–558.Google Scholar

Heintz, C., and Scott-Phillips, T. (2022). Expression unleashed: The evolutionary and cognitive foundations of human communication. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Jan. 5. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X22000012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hirschberg, J. (1991). A Theory of Scalar Implicature. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Horn, L. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (pp. 11–42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Horn, L. (2004). Implicature. In Horn, L. and Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Horn, L. and Ward, G., eds. (2004). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Huang, Y. (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lepore, E., and Stone, M. (2010). Against metaphorical meaning. Topoi, 29, 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lepore, E., and Stone, M. (2015). Imagination and Convention: Distinguishing Grammar and Inference in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8: 339–359. Repr. in Lewis (1983), pp. 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewis, D. (1983). Philosophical Papers. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lycan, W. (1995). Philosophy of language. In Audi, R. (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (pp. 586–589). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mazzone, M. (2015). Constructing the context through goals and schemata: Top-down processes in comprehension and beyond. Frontiers in Psychology, May 19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meibauer, J. (2012). What is a context? Theoretical and empirical evidence. In Finkbeiner, R., Meibauer, J., and Schumacher, P. (eds.), What Is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges (pp. 9–32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Noveck, I. (2018). Experimental Pragmatics: The Making of a Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Noveck, I., and Sperber, D. (2007). The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of “scalar inferences.” In Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 184–212). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recanati, F. (2004). Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Roberts, C. (2015). Accommodation in a language game. In Loewer, B. and Schaffer, J. (eds.), A Companion to David Lewis (pp. 345–366). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Schulze, C., and Tomasello, M. (2015). 18-month-olds comprehend indirect communicative acts. Cognition, 136, 91–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Scott, K., Clark, B. and Carston, R., eds. (2019). Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Searle, J. (1978). Literal meaning. Erkenntnis, 13, 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, N. V. (1982). Mutual Knowledge. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Southgate, V., Chevallier, C., and Csibra, G. (2009). Sensitivity to communicative relevance tells young children what to imitate. Developmental Science, 12, 1013–1019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sperber, D. (2005). Modularity and relevance: How can a massively modular mind be flexible and context-sensitive? In Carruthers, P., Lawrence, S., and Stich, S. (eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Content (pp. 53–68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sperber, D. (2018). Rethinking ostension, (1) and (2). Dan Sperber’s blog, cognitionand culture.net.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. (2021). Rethinking common ground. Conference presentation, MK40: Common knowledge, common ground and context in communication. University College London.Google Scholar

Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1987). Précis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 697–751.Google Scholar

Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1990). Spontaneous deduction and mutual knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mindreading. Mind and Language, 17, 3–26. Repr. in Wilson and Sperber (2012), pp. 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (2005). Pragmatics. In Jackson, F. and Smith, M. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy (pp. 468–501). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Repr. in Wilson and Sperber (2012), pp. 1–27.Google Scholar

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

Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (2015). Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 15, 117–149.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (1999). Context and Content: Essays on Intentionality in Speech and Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stalnaker, R, (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stojnić, U. (2021). Context and Coherence: The Logic and Grammar of Prominence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van der Henst, J.-B., and Sperber, D. (2004). Testing the cognitive and communicative principles of relevance. In Noveck, I. and Sperber, D. (eds.), Experimental Pragmatics (pp. 141–171). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Repr. in Wilson and Sperber (2012), pp. 279–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van der Henst, J.-B., Sperber, D., and Politzer, G. (2002). When is a conclusion worth deriving? A relevance-based analysis of determinate relational problems. Thinking and Reasoning, 8, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wharton, T., Jagoe, C., and Wilson, D., eds. (2022). Special issue, Relevance Theory: New Horizons. Journal of Pragmatics, 124.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. (2017). Relevance theory. In Huang, Y. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 79–100). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. (2019). Relevance theory. In Aronoff, M. (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.201.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. (2022). Communication, comprehension, and interpretation. In Colston, H., Matlock, T., and Steen, G. (eds.), Dynamism in Metaphor and Beyond (pp. 143–155). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilson, D., and Carston, R. (2019). Pragmatics and the challenge of “non-propositional” effects. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilson, D., and Sperber, D. (2002). Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111, 583–632. Repr. in Wilson and Sperber (2012), pp. 47–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilson, D., and Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In Horn, L. and Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Zufferey, S., Moeschler, J., and Reboul, A. (2019). Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, W. (2009). The cultures of English as a Lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), 567–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, W. (2015). Culture and Identity through English as a Lingua Franca. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baldinger, K. (1980). Semantic Theory: Towards a Modern Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bierwisch, M. (1981). Basic issues in the development of word meaning. In Deutch, W. (ed.), The Child’s Construction of Language (pp. 341–387). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Bierwisch, M., and Schreuder, R. (1992). From concepts to lexical items. Cognition, 42, 23–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Brumfit, C. (2006). A European perspective on language as liminality. In Mar-Molinero, C. and Stevenson, P. (eds.), Language Ideologies, Policies and Practices. Language and Globalization (pp. 28–43). Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230523883_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1975). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Croft, W., and Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croft, W., and Wood, E. J. (2000). Construal operations in linguistics and artificial intelligence. In Albertazzi, L. (ed.), Meaning and Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Approach (pp. 51–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cruse, D. A. (1992). Antonymy revisited: Some thoughts on the relationship between words and concepts. In Frames, Fields, and Contrasts (pp. 289–306). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Cruse, D. A. (2002). Language, meaning and sense: semantics. In Collinge, N. (ed.), An Encyclopedia of Language (pp. 87–104). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

D’Andrade, R. (1987). A folk model of the mind. In Holland, D. and Quinn, N. (eds.), Cultural Models in Language and Thought (pp. 113–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

D’Andrade, R. (1992). Schemas and motivation. In D’Andrade, R. and Strauss, C. (eds.), Human Motives and Cultural Models (pp. 23–44). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic Prototype Semantics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibbs, R. (1996). Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition, 61, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Goddard, C. (1998). Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gruber, J. S. (1985). Lexical, conceptual, and encyclopedic meaning. Quaderni de Semanlica, 2, 254–267.Google Scholar

Gumperz, J. J. (2001). Contextualization and ideology in intercultural communication. In Luzio, A. D., Gunthner, S., and Orletti, F. (eds.), Culture in Communication: Analysis of Intercultural Situations (pp. 35–54). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gumperz, J. J., and Levinson, S., eds. (1996). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Haiman, J. (1980). Dictionaries and encyclopedias. Lingua, 50, 329–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harnad, S. (1990). The Symbol Grounding Problem. Physica D, 42, 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., and Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569–1579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

He, Sui. 2021. Cognitive metaphor theories in translation studies: Toward a dual-model parametric approach. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(1), 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holland, D., and Quinn, N., eds. (1987). Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

House, J. (2014). Managing Academic Institutional Discourse in English as a Lingua Franca. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopkinson, Christopher. (2021). Realizations of oppositional speech acts in English: A contrastive analysis of discourse in L1 and L2 settings. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(2): 163–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2003). Situation-Bound Utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2013). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Kecskes, I. 2021. Processing implicatures in English as a Lingua Franca communication. Lingua, 256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiefer, F. (1990). Linguistic, conceptual and encyclopedic knowledge: Some implications for lexicography. In Magay, T. and Zigány, J. (eds.), BudaLEX ’88 Proceedings: Papers from the 3rd International EURALEX Congress. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.Google Scholar

Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (1988). An overview of cognitive grammar. Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, Vol. III. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

LaPolla, R. J. (2010). Arguments against “Subject” and “Direct Object” as Viable Concepts in Chinese. Frankfurt: Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg.Google Scholar

Leibniz, G. W. (1903). Opuscules et fragments inédits de Leibniz: Extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale de Hanovre, ed. Couturat, Louis, Paris: Félix Alcan.Google Scholar

Meierkord, C. (2002). “Language stripped bare” or “linguistic masala”? Culture in lingua franca communication. In Knapp, K. and Meierkord, C. (eds.), Lingua Franca Communication (pp. 109–134). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Mel’cuk, I., and Zholkovsky, A. (1984). Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary of Modern Russian. Vienna: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach.Google Scholar

Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In Winston, P. H. (ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision (pp. 211–277). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, F. J. (2003). Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language, 79, 682–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paolucci, Claudio. 2021. The distinction between semantics and pragmatics: The point of view of semiotics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(3): 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pinker, S., and Jackendoff, R. (2005). The faculty of language: What’s so special about it? Cognition, 95, 201–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Risager, K. (2006). Language and Culture: Global Flows and Local Complexity. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. In Warren, N. (ed.), Advances in Cross-cultural Psychology (Vol. I, pp. 1–49). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

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

Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Slobin, D. (1991). Learning to think for speaking: Native language, cognition, and rhetorical style. Pragmatics, 1(1), 7–25.Google Scholar

Slobin, D. I. (1997). Mind, code, and text. In Bybee, J., Haiman, J., and Thompson, S. A. (eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givón (pp. 437–467). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taylor, J. (2000). The network model and the two-level model in comparison. In Peeters, B. (ed.), The Lexicon–Encyclopedia Interface (pp. 115–143). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Van Olmen, D., and Tantucci, , V. (2022). Getting attention in different languages: A usage-based approach to parenthetical look in Chinese, Dutch, English, and Italian. Intercultural Pragmatics, 19(2): 141–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Werkmann, H., Kohl, Marianna Bolognesi, K. (2021). The status of conventional metaphorical meaning in the L2 lexicon. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 447–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Whorf, B. L. (1939). The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In Carroll, J. (ed.), Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Aijmer, K. (2002). English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aijmer, K., ed. (2009). Special issue on contrastive pragmatics. Languages in Contrast, 9(1), 1–181.Google Scholar

Aijmer, K. (2011). Well, I’m not sure I think … The use of well by non-native speakers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(2), 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Aijmer, K. (2021). “That’s well good”: A re-emergent intensifier in current British English. Journal of English Linguistics, 49(1), 18–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aijmer, K. (2022). “Well he’s sick anyway like”: Anyway in Irish English. Corpus Pragmatics: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, 6(2), 101–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aijmer, K., and Lewis, D., eds. (2017). Contrastive Analysis of Discourse-Pragmatic Aspects of Linguistic Genres. Cham: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aijmer, K., and Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (2006). Pragmatic Markers in Contrast. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Andersen, G. (2001). Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, G. (2018). Corpus construction. In Jucker, A. H., Schneider, K., and Bublitz, W. (eds.), Methods in Pragmatics (pp. 467–494). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Archer, D., Culpeper, J., and Davies, M. (2008). Pragmatic annotation. In Kytö, M. and Lüdeling, A. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook (pp. 613–642). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar

Archer, D. and Culpeper, J. (2018). Corpus annotation. In Jucker, A. H., Schneider, K., and Bublitz, W. (eds.), Methods in Pragmatics (pp. 495–525). Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, M. (2012). Research paradigms in pragmatics. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, J. M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 23–45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

Barron, A. (2017a). The speech act of “offers” in Irish English. World Englishes, 36(2), 224–238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barron, A. (2017b). Variational pragmatics. In Barron, A., Yueuo, G., and Steen, G. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 91–104). London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beeching, K. (2016). Pragmatic Markers in British English: Meaning in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beeching, K., and Detges, U. (2014). Introduction. In Beeching, K. and Detges, U. (eds.), Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change (pp. 1–23). Brill: Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman. Google Scholar

Brinton, L. J. (2008). The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origin and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, L. J. (2017). The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English: Pathways of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, P., and Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N. (ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (pp. 56–311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

Butler, C. S. (2008). The subjectivity of basically in British English: A corpus-based study. In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics: A Mutualistic Entente (pp. 37–63). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buysse, L. (2017). The pragmatic marker “you know” in learner Englishes. Journal of Pragmatics, 121, 40–57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheshire, J. (2007). Discourse variation, grammaticalization and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11, 155–193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheshire, J., Kerswill, P., Fox, S., and Torgersen, E. (2011). Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: The emergence of Multicultural London English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(2), 151–196. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clancy, B. (2011). Complementary perspectives on hedging behaviour in family discourse: The analytical synergy of variational pragmatics and corpus linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(3), 371–390. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clancy, B. (2015). “Hurry up baby son all the boys is finished their breakfast”: Examining the use of vocatives as pragmatic markers in Traveller, Irish and settled family discourse. In Amador-Moreno, C., McCafferty, K., and Vaughan, E. (eds.), Pragmatic Markers in Irish English (pp. 229–247). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clancy, B., and McCarthy, M. (2015). Co-constructed turn-taking. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C. (eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 430–453). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

Clift, R. (2001). Meaning in interaction. Language, 77, 246–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, J., and Gillings, M. (2018). Politeness variation in England: A north–south divide? In Brezina, V., Love, R., and Aijmer, K. (eds.), Corpus Approaches to Contemporary British Speech: Sociolinguistic Studies of the Spoken BNC2014 (pp. 33–59). New York/London: Routledge. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

D’Arcy, A. (2017). Discourse-Pragmatic Variation in Context: Eight Hundred Years of LIKE. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davies, M. 2009. The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–present). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2): 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davies, M. (2010). The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/.Google Scholar

Degand, L., and Fagard, B. (2011). Alors between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language, 18(1), 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Denis, D., and Tagliamonte, S. A. (2016). Innovation, right? Change, you know? Utterance-final tags in English, Canadian. In H. Pichler, (ed.), Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change in English: New Methods and Insights (pp. 86–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Deutschmann, M. (2003). Apologising in British English. Institutionen för moderna språk. Umeå: Umeå universitet.Google Scholar

Diani, G. (2015). Politeness. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C. (eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 169–191). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., and Hasler-Barker, M. (2017). Elicited data. In Barron, A., G. Yueuo, and G. Steen (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 27–40). London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garcia McAllister, P. (2015). Speech acts: A synchronic perspective. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C. (eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 29–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W., and Colston, H. L. (2020). Pragmatics always matters: An expanded vision of experimental pragmatics. Front. Psychol., July 24. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goźdź-Roszkowski, S., and Hunston, S. (2016). Corpora and beyond: Investigating evaluation in discourse. Introduction to the special issue on corpus approaches to evaluation Corpora, 11(2), 131–141.Google Scholar

Gray, D., and Biber, D. (2015). Stance markers. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C. (eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 219–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morton, J. M. (eds.), Syntax and emantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Huang, L. (2021). Toward multi-modal corpus pragmatics: Rationale, case, and agenda. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 36(1). DOI:10.1093/llc/fqz080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hulleberg Johansen, S. (2020). “I just need to like see what I can do”: A contrastive study of hedging strategies in English and Norwegian informal spoken conversations. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages, University of Oslo.Google Scholar

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

Jucker, A. H., and Taavitsainen, I. (2014). Diachronic corpus pragmatics: Intersections and interactions. In Jucker, A. H., Taavitsainen, I., and Tuominen, J. (eds.), Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics (pp. 3–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jucker, A. H. (2018). Introduction to part 5: Corpus pragmatics. In Jucker, A. H., Schneider, K., and Bublitz, W. (eds.), Methods in Pragmatics (pp. 455–466). Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kallen, J. L. (2015). “Actually, it’s unfair to say that I was throwing stones”: Comparative perspectives on uses of actually in ICE-Ireland. In Amador-Moreno, C., McCafferty, K., and Vaughan, E. (eds.), Pragmatic Markers in Irish English (pp. 135–155). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Knight, D., and Adolphs, S. (2008). Multi-modal corpus pragmatics: The case of active listenership. In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics: A Mutualistic Entente (pp. 175–190). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C., and Smith, N.. (2009). Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17, 365–379. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Li, L., and Yang, Y. (2018). Pragmatic functions of emoji in internet-based communication: A corpus-based study. Asian Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-018-0057-zGoogle Scholar

Linell, P. (1998). Approaching Dialogue Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogic Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Love, R., Dembry., C., Hardie., A., Brezina, V., and McEnery, T. (2017). The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 319–344. Google Scholar

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

Lutzky, U., and Kehoe, A. (2017). “Oops, I didn’t mean to be so flippant.” A corpus pragmatic analysis of apologies in blog data. Journal of Pragmatics, 116: 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mey, J. L. (2017). Interdisciplinarity in pragmatics and linguistics. In Barron, A., Gu, Y., and Steen, G. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 4–18). London/New York: Routledge. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Müller, S. (2005). Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Norrick, N. N. (2009). Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 866–891. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Norrick, N. N. (2015). Interjections. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C. (eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 249–275). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 407–437). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

O’Keeffe, A. (2018). Corpus-based function-to-form approaches. In Jucker, A. H., Schneider, K., and Bublitz, W. (eds.), Methods in Pragmatics (pp. 587–618). Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Palacios-Martínez, I. (2018). ‘Help me move that, blood’ A corpus-based study of the syntax and pragmatics of vocatives in the language of British teenagers. Journal of Pragmatics, 130, 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pichler, H. (2016). Introduction: Discourse-pragmatic variation and change. In H. Pichler, (ed.), Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change in English: New Methods and Insights (pp. 1–18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pöldvere, N., Paradis, C., and Johansson, V. (2017). The London-Lund Corpus 2: A New Corpus of Spoken British English in the Making (LLC 2). Lund University. https://portal.research.lu.se/en/publications/the-london-lund-corpus-2-a-new-corpus-of-spoken-british-english-i.Google Scholar

Romero-Trillo, J., ed. (2008). Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics: A Mutualistic Entente. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Romero-Trillo, J. (2018). Corpus pragmatics and second language pragmatics: A mutualistic entente in theory and practice. Corpus Pragmatics, 2, 113–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ronan, P. (2019). Silly much? Tracing the spread of a new expressive marker in recent corpora. Corpus Approaches into World Englishes and Language Contrasts (Studies in Variation, Contacts, and Change in English, Vol. 20), ed. Parviainen, H., Kaunisto, M., and Pahta, P.. Helsinki: VARIENG.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 (pp. 1–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rühlemann, C., and O’Donnell, M. B. (2012). Introducing a corpus of conversational narratives: Construction and annotation of the Narrative Corpus. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(2), 313–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Staley, L., and Jucker, A. H. (2021). The uh-deconstructed pumpkin pie: The use of uh and um in Los Angeles restaurant server talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 172, 21–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stange, U. (2019). The social life of emotive interjections in spoken British English. Scandinavian Studies in Linguistics, 10(1), 174–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stenström, A.-B. (2011). Pauses and hesitation. In Andersen, G. and Aijmer, K. (eds.), Pragmatics of Society (pp. 537–567). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Svartvik, J. (1990). The London–Lund Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research. Lund: Lund University Press/Bromley: Chartwell-Brat. Google Scholar

Timmis, I. (2015). Tails. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C. (eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 304–327). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tottie, G. (2011). Uh and um as sociolinguistic markers in British English. The International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(2), 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Traugott, E. C., and Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

Van Olmen, D., and Šinkūnienė, J., eds. (2021). Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold. Google Scholar

Wagner, S. E., Hesson, A., and Little, H. M. (2016). The use of referential general extenders across registers. In H. Pichler, (ed.), Discourse Pragmatic Variation and Change in English: New Methods and Insights (pp. 211–231). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Waters, C. (2016). Practical strategies for elucidating discourse-pragmatic variation. In Pichler, H. (ed.), Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change in English: New Methods and Insights (pp. 41–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weisser, M. (2015). Speech act annotation. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C. (eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 84–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

Weisser, M. (2017). Corpora. In Barron, A., Yueuo, G., and Steen, G. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 41–52). London/New York: Routledge. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Bolinger, D. (1958). A theory of pitch accent in English. Word, 14, 109–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bolinger, D. (1972). Accent is predictable (if you’re a mind reader). Language, 37, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bolinger, D. (1978). Intonation across languages. In Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, C. A., and Moravcsik, E. A. (eds.), Universals of Human Language, Vol. II: Phonology (pp. 471–524). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Brazil, D. (1975). Discourse Intonation 1/2. Birmingham: Birmingham University Press.Google Scholar

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

Chafe, W. L. (1974). Language and consciousness. Language, 50, 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chafe, W. L. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Tomlin, R. S. (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse (pp. 21–51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar