Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:28:31.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part II - Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2021

Edited by
Michael Haugh ,
Dániel Z. Kádár  and
Marina Terkourafi
Michael Haugh
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Dániel Z. Kádár
Affiliation:
Hungarian Research Institute for Linguistics, and Dalian University of Foreign Languages
Marina Terkourafi
Affiliation:
Leiden University
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics , pp. 247 - 566
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9(1), 119–53.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2005). Pragmatics, conversational implicature, and conversation. In Fitch, K. L. and Sanders, R. E., eds., Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 41–63.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2009). Face as emergent in interpersonal communication: An alternative to Goffman. In Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Haugh, M., eds., Face, Communication and Social Interaction. London: Equinox, pp. 33–54.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2078–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2013). Face as a research focus in interpersonal pragmatics: Relational and emic perspectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 108–20.Google Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003). Face and politeness: New (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10–11), 1453–69.Google Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2009). Facing the future: Some reflections. In Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Haugh, M., eds., Face, Communication and Social Interaction. London: Equinox, pp. 307–26.Google Scholar
Bogdanowska-Jakubowska, E. (2010). Face: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Google Scholar
Bravo, D. (2008). (Im)politeness in Spanish-speaking socio-cultural contexts: Introduction. Pragmatics, 18(4), 563–76.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Originally published as Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena, in E. Goody, ed. (1978), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–289.Google Scholar
Chang, W. M. and Haugh, M. (2011). Strategic embarrassment and face threatening in business interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 2948–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Haugh, M. (2014). Pragmatics and the English Language. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Terkourafi, M. (2017). Pragmatic approaches (im)politeness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 11–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S., Nakamura, K. and Guo, J. (1995). Shifting face from Asia to Europe. In Shibatani, M. and Thompson, S., eds., Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics: In Honor of Charles J. Fillmore. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 43–71.Google Scholar
Fukushima, S. (2000). Requests and Culture: Politeness in British English and Japanese. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fukushima, S. (2015). In search of another understanding of politeness: From the perspective of attentiveness. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2), 261–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2009). Impoliteness and identity in the American news media: The “Culture Wars”. Journal of Politeness Research, 5(2), 273–304.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2013). Face, identity, and im/politeness: Looking backwards, moving forward – From Goffman to Practice Theory. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. and Bou-Franch, P. (2019). Emic conceptualizations of face (imagen) in Peninsular Spanish. In Ogiermann, E. and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., eds., From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness: Multilingual and Multicultural Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 301–27.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. and Sifianou, M. (2017). Im/politeness and identity. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 227–56.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. ([1955] 1972). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In Laver, J. and Hutcheson, S., eds., Communication in Face-to-Face Interaction. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, pp. 319–46.Google Scholar
Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 237–58.Google Scholar
Hall, K. and Bucholtz, M. (2013). Epilogue: Facing identity. Journal of Politeness Research, 9, 123–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M. (2009). Face and interaction. In Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Haugh, M., eds., Face, Communication and Social Interaction. London: Equinox, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2010). When is an email really offensive? Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research, 6(1), 7–31.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2012). Epilogue: The first-second order distinction in face and politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 8(1), 111–34.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Disentangling face, facework and im/politeness. Sociocultural Pragmatics, 1(1), 46–73.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2010). Editorial: Face in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2073–7.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Watanabe, Y. (2009). Analysing Japanese ‘face-in-interaction’: Insights from intercultural business meetings. In Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Haugh, M., eds., Face, Communication and Social Interaction. London: Equinox, pp. 78–95.Google Scholar
Hernández-Flores, N. (2008). Politeness and other types of facework: Communicative and social meaning in a television panel discussion. Pragmatics, 18(4), 681–706.Google Scholar
Hinze, C. G. (2012). Chinese politeness is not about ‘face’: Evidence from the business world. Journal of Politeness Research, 8(2), 11–27.Google Scholar
Hirschon, R. (2001). Freedom, solidarity and obligation: The socio-cultural context of Greek politeness. In Bayraktaroğlu, A. and Sifianou, M., eds., Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–42.Google Scholar
Ho, D. Y. F., Fu, W. and Ng, S. M. (2004). Guilt, shame and embarrassment: Revelations of face and self. Culture and Psychology, 10, 64–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtgraves, T. (1992). The linguistic realization of face management: Implications of language production and comprehension, person perception, and cross-cultural communication. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 141–59.Google Scholar
Holtgraves, T. (2002). Language as Social Action. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Neglected aspects of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8(2), 223–48.Google Scholar
Intachakra, S. (2012). Politeness motivated by the ‘heart’ and ‘binary rationality’ in Thai culture. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(5), 619–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S. M. and Bodie, G. D. (2014). Supportive communication. In Berger, C. R., ed., Handbooks of Communication Science: Vol. 6. Interpersonal Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 371–94.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1997). Linguistic etiquette. In Coulmas, F., ed., The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 374–85.Google Scholar
Kinnison, L. Q. (2017). Power, integrity, and mask: An attempt to disentangle the Chinese face concept. Journal of Pragmatics, 114, 32–48.Google Scholar
Koutlaki, S. A. (2002). Offers and expressions of thanks as face enhancing acts: tæ’arof in Persian. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(12), 1733–56.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, T.-S. and Bowers, J. W. (1991). Facework: Solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human Communication Research, 17, 415–50.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2006). Polite behaviour within relational work: The discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua, 25(3), 249–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2011). Situated impoliteness: The interface between relational work and identity construction. In Davies, B. L., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A. J., eds., Situated Politeness. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 187–208.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–34.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2008). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A., eds., Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 77–99.Google Scholar
Linguistic Politeness Research Group (ed.). (2011). Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mao, L. M. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 451–86.Google Scholar
Marmaridou, S. A. S. (2011). The relevance of embodiment to lexical and collocational meaning: The case of prosopo ‘face’ in Modern Greek. In Maalej, Z. A. and Yu, N., eds., Embodiment via Body Parts: Studies from Various Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 23–40.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Re-examination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(4), 403–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nwoye, O. G. (1992). Linguistic politeness and sociocultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(4), 309–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Driscoll, J. (2007). Brown and Levinson’s face: How it can – and can’t – help us to understand interaction across cultures. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 463–92.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, J. (2011a). Some issues with the concept of face: When, what, how and how much? In Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., Politeness across Cultures. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Driscoll, J. (2011b). Review of F. Bargiela-Chiappini and M. Haugh (eds.). 2009. Face, Communication and Social Interaction. London: Equinox. Journal of Politeness Research, 7, 153–7.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, J. (2017). Face and (im)politeness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 89–118.Google Scholar
Pizziconi, B. (2003). Re-examining politeness, face and the Japanese language. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1471–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In Schenkein, J., ed., Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 79–112.Google Scholar
Ruhi, Ş. (2010). Face as an indexical category in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2131–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruhi, Ş. and Işık-Güler, H. (2007). Conceptualizing face and relational work in (im)politeness: Revelations from politeness lexemes and idioms in Turkish. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 681–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruhi, Ş. and Kádár, D. Z. (2011). ‘Face’ across historical cultures: A comparative study of Turkish and Chinese. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 12(1/2), 25–48.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. (1997). Silence and politeness. In Jaworski, A., ed., Silence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 63–84.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. (2011). On the concept of face and politeness. In Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., Politeness across Cultures. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 42–58.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. (2012). Disagreements, politeness and face. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1554–64.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. (2016). On culture, face and politeness. Again. In Bogdanowska-Jakubowska, E., ed., New Ways to Face and (Im)Politeness. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, pp. 15–30.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. London: Continuum, pp. 11–46.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2002). Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(5), 529–45.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 95–119.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 639−56.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, 2nd ed. London: Continuum, pp. 11–47.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2009). Face, identity and interactional goals. In Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Haugh, M., eds., Face, Communication and Social Interaction. London: Equinox, pp. 137–54.Google Scholar
St. André, J. (2013). How the Chinese lost ‘face’. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 68–85.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2007). Toward a universal notion of face for a universal notion of cooperation. In Kecskés, I. and Horn, L., eds., Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 307–38.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91–112.Google Scholar
Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In Gudykunst, W. B., ed., Theorizing about Intercultural Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 71–91.Google Scholar
Ting-Toomey, S. (2009). Facework collision in intercultural communication. In Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Haugh, M., eds., Face, Communication and Social Interaction. London: Equinox, pp. 227–49.Google Scholar
Ting-Toomey, S. and Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 187–225.Google Scholar
Ukosakul, M. (2005). The significance of ‘face’ and politeness in social interaction as revealed through Thai ‘face’ idioms. In Lakoff, R. and Ide, S., eds., Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 117–25.Google Scholar
Van der Bom, I. and Mills, S. (2015). A discursive approach to the analysis of politeness data. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2), 179–206.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, R. J. (2005). Linguistic politeness research. Quo vadis? In Watts, R. J., Ide, S. and Ehlich, K., eds., Politeness in Language: Studies in Its Hstory, Theory and Practice, 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. xi–xivii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, R. J., Ide, S. and Ehlich, K. (1992). Introduction. In Watts, R. J., Ide, S. and Ehlich, K., eds., Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
Yu, N. (2001). What does our face mean to us? Pragmatics and Cognition, 9(1), 1–36.Google Scholar

References

Agha, A. (2007). Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S. (1998). Identity as an achievement and as a tool. In Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S., eds., Identities in Talk. London: Sage, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Antos, G., Ventola, E. and Weber, T. (2008). Introduction: Interpersonal communication – Linguistic points of view. In Antos, G. and Ventola, E., eds., Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2006). Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 2(2), 193–216.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2010a). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2078–2105.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2010b). Relating. In Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L., eds., Interpersonal Pragmatics, Vol. 6, Handbooks of Pragmatics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 137–65.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2013a). Conceptualizing “interaction” in interpersonal pragmatics: Implications for understanding and research. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 12–26.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2013b). Face, relating, and dialectics: A response to Spencer-Oatey. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 138–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2020). Communicating & Relating. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2015). Review of Relationship Thinking: Agency, Enchrony, and Human Sociality, by N. J. Enfield. Language in Society, 44(4), 584–7.Google Scholar
Bavelas, J. B. (2003). Relationship metaphors. In International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family. www.encyclopedia.com/reference/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/relationship-metaphors.Google Scholar
Baxter, L. A. (2004). Relationships as dialogues. Personal Relationships, 11(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Baxter, L. A. and Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and Dialectics. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, D. O. and Schrodt, P. (eds.). (2015). Engaging Theories of Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.Google Scholar
Burleson, B. L., Metts, S. and Kirch, M. W. (2000). Communication in close relationships. In Hendrick, C. and Hendrick, S. S., eds., Close Relationships: A Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 245–58.Google Scholar
Carbaugh, D. and Boromisza-Habashi, D. (2015). Ethnography of communication. In Tracy, K., Ilie, C. and Sandell, T., eds., The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Boston, MA: Wiley, pp. 537–52.Google Scholar
Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 119–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, R. T. (2015). The constitutive metamodel: A Sixteen-year review. Communication Theory, 25(4), 356–74.Google Scholar
Duck, S. and McMahan, D. T. (2009). The Basics of Communication: A Relational Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2009). Relationship thinking and human pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(1), 60–78.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2013). Relationship Thinking: Agency, Enchrony, and Human Sociality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fitch, K. L. 1994. Culture, ideology, and interpersonal communication research. In Deetz, S. A., ed., Communication Yearbook 17. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 104–35.Google Scholar
Fitch, K. L. (1998). Speaking Relationally: Culture, Communication, and Interpersonal Connection. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Gergen, K. J. (2009.) Relational Being: Beyond Self and Community. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1986). Audience diversity, participation and interpretation. Text, 6(3), 283–316.Google Scholar
Hall, J. A. and Davis, D. C. (2017). Proposing the communicate bond belong theory: Evolutionary intersections with episodic interpersonal communication. Communication Theory, 27(1), 21–47.Google Scholar
Haugh, M., Kádár, D. Z. and Mills, S. (2013). Interpersonal pragmatics: Issues and debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 1–11.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. (2012). Relational ritual. In Östman, J. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–40.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. (2013). Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Bax, M. M. H. (2013). In-group ritual and relational work. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 73–86.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, A. (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (1970). On generating data in communication research. Journal of Communication, 20(3), 241–69.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (2009). On Communicating: Otherness, Meaning, and Information. Edited by Bermejo, F.. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langlotz, A. and Locher, M. A. (2013). The role of emotions in relational work. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 87–107.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2008). Relational work, politeness, and identity construction. In Antos, G. and Ventola, E., eds., Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 509–40.Google Scholar
Locher, M. and Graham, S. L. (2010). Introduction to interpersonal pragmatics. In Locher, M. and Graham, S. L., eds., Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2013). Relational work and interpersonal pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 145–9.Google Scholar
Owen, W. F. (1990). Delimiting relational metaphors. Communication Studies, 41(1), 35–53.Google Scholar
Peräkylä, A., Ruusuvuori, J. and Vehviläinen, S. (2005). Introduction: Professional theories and institutional interaction. Communication and Medicine, 2(2), 105–9.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2005). Social Emergence: Societies as Complex Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sigman, S. J. (1991). Handling the discontinuous aspects of continuous social relationships: Toward research on the persistence of social forms. Communication Theory, 1(2), 106–27.Google Scholar
Simmel, G. (1950). The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Translated by Wolff, K. H.. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. London: Continuum, pp. 11–46.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 639–56.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2011). Conceptualizing “the relational” in pragmatics: Insights from metapragmatic emotion and (im)politeness comments. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(14), 3565–78.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2013). Relating at work: Facets, dialectics, and face. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 121–37.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2015). Rapport management model. In Tracy, K., Ilie, C. and Sandell, T., eds., The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Boston: John Wiley, pp. 1286–91.Google Scholar
Stewart, J. (2011). A contribution to ethical theory and praxis. In Cheney, G., May, S. and Munshi, D., eds., The Handbook of Communication Ethics. New York: Routledge, pp. 15–30.Google Scholar
Stewart, J. (2014). U and Me: Communicating in Moments That Matter. Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute.Google Scholar
Stewart, J., Zediker, K. E. and Witteborn, S. (2005). Together: Communicating Interpersonally, a Social Construction Approach. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H. and Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar

References

Ajtony, Z. (2013). Various facets of the English stereotype in Downton Abbey – A pragmatic approach. Topics in Linguistics, 12, 5–14.Google Scholar
Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S. (eds.). (1998). Identities in Talk. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Anton, C. and Peterson, V. (2003). Who said what: Subject positions, rhetorical strategies and good faith. Communication Studies, 54, 403–19.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2005). Pragmatics, conversational implicature, and conversation. In Fitch, K. L. and Sanders, R. E., eds., Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 41–63.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2006). Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 2(2), 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2009). Face as emergent in interpersonal communication: An alternative to Goffman. In Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Haugh, M., eds., Face, Communication and Social Interaction. London: Equinox, pp. 33–54.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2078–2105.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2013a). Face, relating, and dialectics: A response to Spencer-Oatey. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 138–42.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2013b). Face as a research focus in interpersonal pragmatics: Relational and emic perspectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 108–20.Google Scholar
Bamberg, M. (1997) Positioning between structure and performance. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, 335–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamberg, M. and Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text and Talk, 28, 377–96.Google Scholar
Barke, A. (2010). Manipulating honorifics in the construction of social identities in Japanese television drama. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14(4), 456–76.Google Scholar
Basturkmen, H. (2010). Developing Courses in English for Specific Purposes. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Benwell, B. and Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. and De Fina, A. (2017). Chronotopic identities: On the timespace organization of who we are. In De Fina, A., Ikizoglu, D. and Wegner, J., eds., Diversity and Super-diversity. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. and Hamo, M. (2011). Discourse pragmatics. In van Dijk, T., ed., Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London: Sage, pp. 143–65.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. New York: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bousfield, D. (2013). Face in conflict. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 1(1), 37.Google 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. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–289.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals of Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond “identity”. Theory and Society, 29(1), 1–47.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A socio-cultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4/5), 585–614.Google Scholar
Chaemsaithong, K. (2019). Person reference, identity, and linguistic violence in capital trials. Journal of Pragmatics, 142, 90–104.Google Scholar
Cheng-Tuan, L. and Yong-Ping, R. (2016). Self-professional identity construction through other-identity deconstruction in Chinese televised debating discourse.  Journal of Pragmatics, 94, 47–63.Google Scholar
Clark, B. (2016). Flight attendant identity construction in inflight incident reports. Pragmatics and Society, 7(1), 8–29.Google Scholar
Comstock, L. B. (2015). Facilitating active engagement in intercultural teleconferences: A pragmalinguistic study of Russian and Irish participation frameworks. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(4), 481–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Fina, A. and Perrino, S. (2013). Transnational identities. Applied Linguistics, 34(5), 509–15.Google Scholar
Dings, A. (2012). Native speaker/nonnative speaker interaction and orientation to novice/expert identity. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(11), 1503–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobs, A. M. (2014). Identities in conflict: Examining the co-construction of impoliteness and identity in classroom interaction. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 2(1), 36–73.Google Scholar
Donaghue, H. (2018). Relational work and identity negotiation in critical post observation teacher feedback. Journal of Pragmatics, 135, 101–16.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. (2009). Language and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
File, K. A. and Schnurr, S. (2018). That match was “a bit like losing your virginity”: Failed humour, face and identity construction in TV interviews with professional athletes and coaches. Journal of Pragmatics, 152, 132–44.Google Scholar
Finnis, K. (2013). Creating a “new space”: Code-switching among British-born Greek-Cypriots in London. Pragmatics and Society, 4(2), 137–57.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. and Leong, S. (2010). Presumed knowledge in the discursive construction of socio-political and cultural identity. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2240–52.Google Scholar
Fukushima, S. and Sifianou, M. (2017). Conceptualizing politeness in Japanese and Greek. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(4), 525–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2009). Impoliteness and identity in the American news media: The Culture Wars. Journal of Politeness Research, 5, 273–304.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010). A genre approach to the study of im-politeness. International Review of Pragmatics, 2, 46–94.Google Scholar
Garcés-Coneos Blitvich, P. (ed.). (2013). Special issue: Face, identity, and impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1).Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2013). Face, identity, and im/politeness: Looking backwards, moving forward – From Goffman to Practice Theory. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2018). Globalization, transnational identities, and conflict talk: The complexity of the Latino identity. Journal of Pragmatics, 134, 120–33.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. and Sifianou, M. (2017). Im/politeness and identity. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 227–56.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., Bou-Franch, P. and Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2010). A genre-approach to im-politeness in a Spanish TV talk show: Evidence from corpus-based analysis, questionnaires and focus groups. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 689–723.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., Bou-Franch, P. and Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2013). Identity and impoliteness: The expert in the talent show Idol. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 97–121.Google Scholar
Garcia-Bedolla, L. (2003). The identity paradox: Latino language, politics and selective dissociation. Latino Studies, 1, 264–83.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis Theory and Method. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (2007). Small Stories, Interaction and Identities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). “On MSN with buff boys”: Self‐and other‐identity claims in the context of small stories 1. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(5), 597–626.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (2013a). Building iterativity into positioning analysis: A practice-based approach to small stories and self. Special Issue on Positioning. Narrative Inquiry, 23, 89–110.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (2013b). Small stories and identities analysis as a framework for the study of im/politeness-in-interaction. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 55–74.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (2017). Sharing the moment as small stories: The interplay between practices and affordances in the social media-curation of lives. Narrative Inquiry, 27, 311–33.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (2019). Designing stories on social media: A corpus-assisted critical perspective on the mismatches of story-curation. Linguistics and Education.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. and Vasilaki, M. (2018). The personal and/as the political. Internet Pragmatics, 1(2), 215–40.Google Scholar
Grainger, K. (2011). “First order” and “second order” politeness: Institutional and intercultural contexts. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group, ed., Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 167–88.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. ([1955] 1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
González-Cruz, M. (2014). Request patterns by EFL Canarian Spanish students: Contrasting data by languages and research methods. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(4), 547–73.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1967). Logic and conversation. William James Lectures.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, S. and Du Gay, P. (eds.). (1996). Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2007). The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research, 3(2), 295–317.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Disentangling face, facework and im/politeness. Sociocultural Pragmatics, 1(1), 46–73.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2015). Im/politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Culpeper, J. (2017). Integrative pragmatics and (im)politeness theory. In Ilie, C. and Norrick, N., eds., Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 213–39.Google Scholar
Haugh, M., Chang, Wei-Lin M. and Kádár, D. (2015) ‘Doing deference’: Identities and relational practices in Chinese online discussion boards. Pragmatics, 25, 73–98.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hlavac, J., Xu, Z. and  Yong, D. X. (2015). Intercultural pragmatics at work: (Self)perceptions of intercultural behavior of Chinese and English speakers and interpreters in healthcare interactions. Intercultural Pragmatics,  12(1), 91–118.Google Scholar
Ige, B. (2010). Identity and language choice: ‘We equals I’. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 3047–54.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A. (ed.). (2009). Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Stance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, R. (forthcoming). Discourse analysis and digital surveillance. In de Fina, A. and Georgakopoulou, A., eds., Handbook of Discourse Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 708–31.Google Scholar
Joseph, J. (2004). Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Joseph, J. (2010). Identity. In Llamas, C. and Watt, D., eds., Language and Identities. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 9–17.Google Scholar
Joseph, J. (2013). Identity work and face work across linguistic and cultural boundaries. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 35–54.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kádár, D., Haugh, M. and Chang, W. M. (2013). Aggression and perceived national face threats in mainland Chinese and Taiwanese CMC discussion boards. Multilingua, 32(3), 343–72.Google Scholar
Karachaliou, R. and Argiris, A. (2015). Identity construction patterns via swearing: Evidence from Greek teenage storytelling. Pragmatics and Society, 6(3), 421–43.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 11, 281–314.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Blum-Kulka, S. (eds.). (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kiesling, S. (2013). Constructing identity. In Chambers, J. and Schilling, N., eds., The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Willey, pp. 448–67.Google Scholar
Koenig, K. and Zhu, Q. (2017). Communicative constructions of space in epistemic asymmetry: The case of German-Chinese university placement interviews. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(2), 239–76.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1963). The social motivation of a sound change. Word, 19(3), 273–309.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. T. (1975). Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2008). Relational work, politeness and identity construction. In Antos, G. and Ventola, E., eds., Handbooks of Applied Linguistics. Issue 2: Interpersonal Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 509–40.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (ed.). (2010). Politeness and computer-mediated communication. Special Issue. Journal of Politeness Research, 6(1).Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L. (eds.). (2010). Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 9–33.Google Scholar
Marquez Reiter, R. (2000). Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mendoza-Denton, N. (2008). Language and identity. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P. and Schilling-Estes, N., eds., The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 475–99.Google Scholar
Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Miller, E. (2013). Positioning selves, doing relational work and constructing identities in interview talk, Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 75–95.Google Scholar
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mouffe, C. (2005). For an agonistic public sphere. In Tønder, L. and Thomassen, L., eds., Radical Democracy: Politics between Abundance and Lack. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, pp. 123–32.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In Duranti, A. and Goodwinm, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 335–58.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, J. (2011). Some issues with the concept of face: When, what, how and how much? In Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Kádár, D., eds., Politeness across Cultures. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 17–41.Google Scholar
Perelmutter, R. (2018). Globalization, conflict discourse, and Jewish identity in an Israeli Russian-speaking online community. Journal of Pragmatics, 134, 134–48.Google Scholar
Placencia, M. E. (2008). Pragmatic variation in corner shop transactions in Ecuadorian Andean and Coastal Spanish. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 307–32.Google Scholar
Ponton, D. M. The female political leader: A study of gender-identity in the case of Margaret Thatcher. Journal of Language and Politics, 9(2), 195–218.Google Scholar
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practice. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–63.Google Scholar
Rees, C. E. and Monrouxe, L. V. (2010). “I should be lucky ha ha ha ha”: The construction of power, identity and gender through laughter within medical workplace learning encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3384–99.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse and Society, 8(2), 165–87.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A. (eds.). (2014). Pragmatics of Discourse. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(4), 639–56.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2009). Face, identity and interactional goals. In Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Haugh, M., eds., Face, Communication and Social Interaction. London: Equinox, pp. 137–54.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (2016). Mock politeness and culture: Perceptions and practice in UK and Italian data. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(4), 463–98.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2005). Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(2), 237–62.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2013). Re-assessing the speech act schema: Twenty-first century reflections International Review of Pragmatics, 5, 197–216.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. (1998). Opinions and ideologies in the press. In Bell, A. and Garrett, P., eds., Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 21–63.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Vöge, M. (2010). Local identity processes in business meetings displayed through laughter in complaint sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1556–76.Google Scholar
Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse and Society, 9(3), 387–412.Google Scholar
Wolfers, S., File, K. and Schnurr, S. (2017). “Just because he’s black”: Identity construction and racial humour in a German U-19 football team. Journal of Pragmatics, 112, 83–96.Google Scholar
Wortham, S. (2010). Learning Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zienkowski, J., Östman, J. and Verschueren, J. (eds.). (2011). Discursive Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H. (1998). Identity, context and interaction. In Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S., eds., Identities in Talk. London: Sage, pp. 87–106.Google Scholar

References

Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational Routines in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Allen, K. (2016). A benchmark of politeness. In Capone, A. and Mey, J., eds., Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 397–420.Google Scholar
Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bousfield, D. and Culpeper, J. (eds.). (2008). Impoliteness: Eclecticism and Diaspora. Special Issue. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(2).Google Scholar
Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. (eds.). (2008). Impoliteness in Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brown, P. (2017). Politeness and impoliteness. In Huang, Y., ed., Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 383–99.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R., Reno, R. and Kallgren, C. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–26.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1981). Conversational Routine. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349–67.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2008). Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M., eds., Impoliteness in Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 17–44.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Haugh, M. (2014). Pragmatics and the English Language. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Haugh, M. (forthcoming). The metalinguistics of offence in (British) English: A corpus-based metapragmatic approach. Journal of Language, Aggression and Conflict.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Terkourafi, M. (2017). Pragmatics and (im)politeness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., Palgrave Handbook of (Im)politeness. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, pp. 11–39.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. (eds.). (2017). Palgrave Handbook of (Im)politeness. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. and Gerard, H. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629–36.Google Scholar
Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Firth, J. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955. In Firth, J. R., ed., Studies in Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Philological Society, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Freedman, D. (2001). Ecological inference and the ecological fallacy. In Smelser, N. J. and Baltes, P. B., eds., International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 6. New York: Elsevier, pp. 4027–30.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. and Sifianou, M. (2019). Im/politeness and discursive pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 91–101.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010). A genre approach to the study of im-politeness. International Review of Pragmatics, 2(1), 46–94.Google Scholar
Grainger, K. (2011). ‘First order’ and ‘second order’ politeness: Institutional and intercultural contexts. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group, eds., Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 167–88.Google Scholar
Grainger, K. (2013). Of babies and bath water: Is there any place for Austin and Grice in interpersonal pragmatics? Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 27–38.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haakana, M. (2007). Reported thought in complaint stories. In Holt, E. and Clift, R., eds., Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 150–78.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2012). Epilogue: The first-second order distinction in face and politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 8(1), 111–34.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 52–72.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2015). Im/politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2017). Implicature and the inferential substrate. In Cap, P. and Dynel, M., eds., Implicitness: From Lexis to Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 281–304.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2018). Afterword: Theorising (im)politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 14(1), 153-65.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Culpeper, J. (2018). Integrative pragmatics and (im)politeness theory. In Ilie, C. and Norrick, N. R., eds., Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 213–39.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Watanabe, Y. (2017). (Im)politeness theory. In Vine, B., ed., Handbook of Language in the Workplace. London: Routledge, pp. 65–76.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1996). Women’s role in language change: A place for quantification. In Warner, N., Ahlers, J., Bilmes, L., Oliver, M., Wertheim, S. and Chen, M., eds., Gender and Belief Systems. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley Women and Language Group, pp. 313–30.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Schnurr, S. (2005). Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 121–49.Google Scholar
Holmes, J., Marra, M. and Vine, B. (2011). Leadership, Discourse and Ethnicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holt, E. (2012). Using laugh responses to defuse complaints. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(4), 430–48.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, G., ed., Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–23.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. (2020). Politeness in the History of English: From the Middle Ages to the Present Day. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. (2017). Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; or, minding your p’s and q’s’. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 292–305.Google Scholar
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17(5–6), 365–99.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Locher, M. (2015). Interpersonal pragmatics and its link to (im)politeness research. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 5–10.Google Scholar
Locher, M. and Bolander, B. (2019). Ethics in pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 83–90.Google Scholar
Locher, M. and Larina, T. (2019). Introduction to politeness and impoliteness research in global contexts. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 23(4), 873–903.Google Scholar
Locher, M. and Watts, R. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–33.Google Scholar
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mills, S. (2011). Communities of practice and politeness. In Davis, B., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A., eds., Situated Politeness. London: Continuum, pp. 73–87.Google Scholar
Mills, S. (2017). English Politeness and Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In Winston, P. H., ed., The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 211–77.Google Scholar
Mitchell, N. and Haugh, M. (2015). Agency, accountability and evaluations of impoliteness.” Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2), 207–38.Google Scholar
Mulder, J. and Thompson, S. (2008). The grammaticalization of but as a final particle in English conversation. In Laury, R., ed., Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 179–204.Google Scholar
Ogiermann, E. and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2019). Im/politeness between the analyst and participant perspective: An overview of the field. In Ogiermann, E. and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., eds., From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness: Multilingual and Multicultural Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Pike, K. (1967). Etic and emic standpoints for the description of behavior. In Hildum, D. C., ed., Language and Thought: An Enduring Problem in Psychology. Princeton, NJ: Van Norstrand, pp. 32–39.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the cooperation of multiple constraints. In Schenkein, J., ed., Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 79–112.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. and Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101.Google Scholar
Robinson, W. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behaviour of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15(3), 351–7.Google Scholar
Schank, R. and Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (2000). On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 715–20.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2017). (Im)politeness and cultural variation. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D., eds., Palgrave Handbook of (Im)politeness. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, pp. 571–99.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 95–119.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. and Kádár, D. (2016). The bases of (im)politeness evaluations: Culture, the moral order and the East-West debate. East Asian Pragmatics, 1(1), 73–106.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. ([1986] 1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tayebi, T. (2018). Implying an impolite belief: A case of tikkeh in Persian. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(1), 89–113.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2001). Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A frame-based approach. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2005a). Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(2), 237–62.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2005b). Pragmatic correlates of frequency of use: The case for a notion of ‘minimal context’. In Marmaridou, S., Nikiforidou, K. and Antonopoulou, E., eds., Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the 21st Century. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 209–33.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2011). From politeness1 to politeness2: Tracking norms of im/politeness across time and space. Journal of Politeness Research, 7(2), 159–85.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2019a). Im/politeness: a twenty-first century appraisal. Foreign Language and Foreign Language Teaching [外语与外语教学] (Dalian University of Foreign Languages), 2019(6), 1–17.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2019b). Coming to grips with variation in sociocultural interpretations: methodological considerations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 50(10), 1198–1215.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1981). Pragmatic failure, unpublished MA dissertation, University of Lancaster.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.Google Scholar
Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Watts, R., Ide, S. and Ehlich, K. (1992). Introduction. In Watts, R., Ide, S. and Ehlich, K., eds., Politeness in Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
Watts, R., Ide, S. and Ehlich, K. (eds.). (1992). Politeness in Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, S. and Kitzinger, C. (2006). Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(2), 150–82.Google Scholar

References

Alba-Juez, L. (2016). The variables of the evaluative functional relationship: The case of humorous discourse. In Ruiz Gurillo, L. (ed.) Metapragmatics of Humor: Current Research Trends. IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–34.Google Scholar
Alba-Juez, L. (2018). Emotion and appraisal processes in language: How are they related? In Gómez González, M. and Mackenzie, J. L., eds., The Construction of Discourse as Verbal Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 227–50.Google Scholar
Alba-Juez, L. and Attardo, S. (2014). The evaluative palette of verbal irony. In Thompson, G. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 93–115.Google Scholar
Alba-Juez, L. and Mackenzie, J. L. (2019). Emotion processes in discourse. In Mackenzie, J. L. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Emotion in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–26.Google Scholar
Alba-Juez, L. and Pérez-González, J. C. (2019). Emotion and language ‘at work’: The relationship between Trait Emotional Intelligence and communicative competence as manifested at the workplace. In Mackenzie, J. L. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Emotion in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 247–78.Google Scholar
Alba-Juez, L. and Thompson, , G. (2014). The many faces and phases of evaluation. In Thompson, G. and Alba-Juez, L. (eds.), Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
Alonso Belmonte, I. (2019). Victims, heroes and villains in newsbites: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Spanish eviction crisis in El País. In Mackenzie, J. L. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Emotion in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 335–55.Google Scholar
Attardo, S. (2008). Semantics and pragmatics of humor. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(6), 1203–15.Google Scholar
Attardo, S. (2019). Humor and mirth: Emotions, sustained humor and embodied cognition. In Mackenzie, J. L. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Emotion in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 199–211.Google Scholar
Bamberg, M. (1997). Language, concepts and emotions: The role of language in the construction of emotions. www.econgeography.org/~mbamberg/Material_files/1997A.pdf.Google Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2013). Embodied discursivity: Introducing sensory pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 39–51.Google Scholar
Bateson, M. C. (1975). Mother–infant exchanges: The epigenesis of conversation interaction. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 263, 101–13.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. (2008). Emotion Talk across Corpora. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. (2019). The multifunctionality of swear/taboo words in television series. In Mackenzie, J. L. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Emotion in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 29–54.Google Scholar
Benítez Castro, M. A. and Hidalgo Tenorio, E. (2019). Rethinking Martin and White’s AFFECT taxonomy: A psychologically-inspired approach to the linguistic expression of emotion. In Mackenzie, J. L. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Emotion in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 29–54.Google Scholar
Bosque, I. (2010). Aspectos individuales y sociales de las emociones. Sobre la noción de ‘vergüenza’ y sus variantes. Páginas de Guarda, 10, 13–27.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. ([1978] 1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cockcroft, R., Cockcroft, S., Hamilton, C. and Hidalgo Downing, L. ([1992] 2014). Persuading People: An Introduction to Rhetoric. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349–67.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Shauer, G., Marti, L., Mei, M. and Nevala, M. (2014). Impoliteness and emotions in a cross-cultural perspective. SPELL: Swiss Papers in English Language and Literature, 30, 67–88.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. (2018). The Strange Order of Things. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1872). The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. London: John Murray. http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1872_Expression_F1142.pdf.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2011). Revisiting Goffman’s postulates on participant statuses in verbal interaction. Language and Linguistic Compass, 5, 454–65.Google Scholar
Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions Revealed: Recognizing Faces and Feelings to Improve Communication and Emotional Life. Rev. ed. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.Google Scholar
Ekman, P. and Friesen, W. V. (1975). Unmasking the Face. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V. (2017). Expectations in interaction. In Allan, K., Capone, A. and Kecskes, I., eds., Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use. Cham: Springer International, pp. 493‒503.Google Scholar
Evans, N. (2007). Insubordination and its uses. In Nikolaeva, I., ed., Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 366–431.Google Scholar
Foolen, A. P. (2012). The relevance of emotion for language and linguistics. In Foolen, A., Lüdtke, U. M., Racine, T. P. and Zlatev, J., eds., Moving Ourselves, Moving Others: Motion and Emotion in Intersubjectivity, Consciousness and Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 349‒68.Google Scholar
Foolen, A. P. (2017). Expressives. In de Stadler, L. and Eyrich, C., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Semantics. London: Routledge, pp. 473–90.Google Scholar
Frijda, N. H. (1998). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43(5), 349–58.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. and Grondelaers, S. (1995). Looking back at anger: Cultural traditions and metaphorical patterns. In Taylor, J. and MacLaury, R. E., eds., Language and the Construal of the World. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 153–80.Google Scholar
Gironzetti, E., Attardo, S. and Pickering, , L. (2016). Smiling, gaze and humor in conversation. In Ruiz-Gurillo, L., ed., Metapragmatics of Humor: Current Research Trends. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 235–54.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interactional Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Footing. In Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 124–59.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance, and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society, 18, 53–73.Google Scholar
Haddington, P. (2005). The Intersubjectivity of Stance Taking in Talk-in-Interaction. Oulu: Oulu University Press.Google Scholar
Harré, R. (ed.). (1986). The Social Construction of the Emotions. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2008). Intention and diverging interpretings of implicature in the “uncovered meat” sermon. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5, 201–29.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 52–72.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaufer, D. (1983). Irony, interpretive form and the theory of meaning. Poetics Today, 4(3), 451–64.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1997). Some further steps in narrative analysis. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7(1-4), 3–38.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (2016). Language and emotion. Emotion Review, 8(3), 269‒73.Google Scholar
Larina, T. (2015). Culture-specific communicative styles as a framework for interpreting linguistic and cultural idiosyncrasies. International Review of Pragmatics, 7(5), 195–215.Google Scholar
Langlotz, A. (2017). Language and emotion in fiction. In Locher, M. A. and Jucker, A. H., eds., Pragmatics of Fiction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 515–52.Google Scholar
Langlotz, A. and Locher, M. A. (2013). The role of emotions in relational work. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 87–107.Google Scholar
Le Doux, J. E. (2000). Emotion circuits in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23, 155‒84.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 9–33.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2008). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behavior. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M., eds., Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77–99.Google Scholar
Lutz, C. A. (1988). Unnatural Emotions: Everyday Sentiments on a Micronesian Atoll and Their Challenge to Western Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. L. and Alba-Juez, L. (eds.). (2019). Emotion in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Majid, A. (2013). Discussion note: Making semantics and pragmatics “sensory”. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 48–51.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and White, P. R. R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mayer, J., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D. (2000). Models of emotional intelligence. In Sternberg, R., ed., Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 396–420.Google Scholar
McKeon, R. (1941). The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Myers, D. G. (2004). Theories of Emotion in Psychology. 7th ed. New York: Worth.Google Scholar
Nash, W. (1985). The Language of Humour. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Niemelä, M. (2010). The reporting space in conversational storytelling: Orchestrating all semiotic channels for taking a stance. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3258–70.Google Scholar
Niemelä, M. (2011). Resonance in Storytelling: Verbal, Prosodic and Embodied Practices of Stance Taking. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B95. Oulu: Oulu University Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B. (1989). Language has a heart. Text, 9(1), 7‒25.Google Scholar
Ortony, A. and Turner, T. J. (1990). What’s basic about emotions? Psychological Review, 97(3), 315-31.Google Scholar
Planalp, S. (1999). Communicating Emotion: Social, Moral and Cultural Processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Price, M. (2014). Profiles in evolutionary moral psychology: Richard Joyce. https://evolution-institute.org/article/profiles-in-evolutionary-moral-psychology-richard-joyce/?source=.Google Scholar
Quintilian., (AD 35–100). Institutio Oratoria. 4 vols. Translated by Butler, H. (1920–22). Loeb Classical Library. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Rollins, P. R. (2017). Developmental pragmatics. In Huang, Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 300–309.Google Scholar
Romano, M. (2014). Evaluation in emotion narratives. In Thompson, G. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 367–86.Google Scholar
Russell, J. A. (1991). In defense of a prototype approach to emotion concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(1), 37–47.Google Scholar
Sancho Guinda, C. (2019). Promoemotional science? Emotion and intersemiosis in graphical abstracts. In Mackenzie, J. L. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Emotion in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 357–86.Google Scholar
Scherer, K. R. (2009). The dynamic architecture of emotion: evidence for the component process model. Cognition and Emotion, 23, 347‒85.Google Scholar
Schiff, B. and Noy, C. (2006). Making it personal: Shared meanings in the narratives of Holocaust survivors. In de Fina, A., Schiffrin, D. and Bamberg, M., eds., Discourse and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 398–425.Google Scholar
Schwarz-Friesel, M. (2010). Expressive Bedeutung und E-Implikaturen – Zur Relevanz konzeptueller Bewertungen bei indirekten Sprechakten: Das Streichbarkeitskriterium und seine kognitive Realität. In Rudnitzky, W., ed., Kultura Kak Tekst . Moscow: SGT, pp. 12–27.Google Scholar
Schwarz-Friesel, M. (2015). Language and emotion: The cognitive linguistic perspective. In Lüdtke, U. M., ed., Emotion in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 157‒73.Google Scholar
Shakovsky, V. I. (2016). Dissonance in Communicative Sustainability: People, Language, Emotions. Volgograd: IP Polikarpov.Google Scholar
Soriano, C., Fontaine, J. R. and Scherer, K. R. (2015). Surprise in the GRID. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 436–60.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2013). Conceptualizing ‘the relational’ in pragmatics: Insights from metapragmatic emotion and (im)politeness comments. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(14), 3565–78.Google Scholar
Stapleton, K. (2010). Swearing. In Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L., eds., Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 289–305.Google Scholar
Taboada, M. (2016). Sentiment analysis: An overview from linguistics. Annual Review of Linguistics, 2, 1–23.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2015). The linguistics of politeness and social relations. In Allan, K., ed., Routledge Handbook of Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 221–35.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M., Weissman, B. and Roy, J. (2020). Different scalar terms are affected by face differently. International Review of Pragmatics, 12(1), 1–43.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. (2014). AFFECT and emotion, target-value mismatches, and Russian dolls: Refining the APPRAISAL model. In Thompson, G. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 47–66.Google Scholar
Tomkins, S. S. (1982). Affect theory. In Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V. and Ellsworth, P., eds., Emotion in the Human Face, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 353‒95.Google Scholar
Trevarthen, C. (1979). Instincts from human understanding and for cultural cooperation: Their development in infancy. In Cranach, M. V., Foppa, K., Lepenies, W. and Ploog, D., eds., Human Ethnology: Claims and Limits of a New Discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 530–71.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (1989). Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behaviour. Multilingua, 8(2–3), 131–66.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wetherell, M. (2012). Affect and Emotion: A New Social Science Understanding. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. ([1991] 2003). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2009). Language and metalanguage: Key issues in emotion research. Emotion Review, 1(1), 3–14.Google Scholar

References

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities. 2nd ed. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. ([1962] 1975). How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed. Edited by Urmson, J. O. and Sbisà, M.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. and Zeevat, H. (2007). Accommodation. In Ramchand, G. and Reiss, C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 503–37.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. (eds.). (2008). Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, J. (1999). Performativity’s Social Magic. In Shusterman, R., ed., Bourdieu: A Critical Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 113–28.Google Scholar
Butler, J. (1997). Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2008). Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M., eds., Impoliteness in Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 17–44.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Durkheim, É. ([1895] 1982). The Rules of Sociological Method. Edited by Lukes, S.. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester, UK: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Ehlich, K. (1992). On the historicity of politeness. In Watts, R. J., Ide, S. and Ehlich, K., eds., Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory, and Practice. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 71–108.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1978). The Will to Knowledge. The History of Sexuality vol. 1. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. ([1978] 1994). La philosophie analytique de la politique. In Dits et écrits, vol. III. Paris: Gallimard, pp. 538–54.Google Scholar
Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1986). The Theory of Communicative Action. 2 vols. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Ide, S. (1992). On the notion of Wakimae: Toward an integrated framework of linguistic politeness. In Mosaic of Language. Mejiro Linguistic Society, pp. 298–305.Google Scholar
Ide, S. (1991). Comments from Outside Europe for Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Sociolinguistica: International Yearbook of European Sociolinguistics, pp. 160–61.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. (2011). Positive and negative face as descriptive categories in the history of English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 12, 178–97.Google Scholar
Kroskrity, P. V. (ed.). (2000). Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
Langton, R. (2009). Sexual Solipsism: Philosophical Essays on Pornography and Objectification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langton, R. (2018). The authority of hate speech. In Gardner, J. A. O., ed., Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law, vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 123–52.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (2007). Politeness: Is there an East–West divide? Journal of Politeness Research, 3(2), 167–206.Google Scholar
Leezenberg, M. (2002). Power in communication: Implications for the semantics–pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 893–908.Google Scholar
Leezenberg, M. (2005). Greek tragedy as impolite conversation: Towards a practice approach in linguistic theory. In Marmaridou, S. and Drossou, M., eds., Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the Twenty-first Century. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 191–208.Google Scholar
Leezenberg, M. (2006). Gricean and Confucian pragmatics: A contrastive analysis. Journal of Foreign Languages, November 2006, 2–21. (Reprinted in D. F. Shu and K. P. Turner (eds.). (2010). Contrasting Meaning in Languages of the East and West. Berlin: Peter Lang, pp. 3–32)Google Scholar
Leezenberg, M. (2013). Power in speech actions. In Sbisà, M. and Turner, K. P., eds., Pragmatics of Speech Actions, Handbooks of Pragmatics 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 263–88.Google Scholar
Leezenberg, M. (in prep.). Politeness as symbolic violence.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 339–59.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2006). Polite behaviour within relational work: The discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua, 25, 249–67.Google Scholar
McGowan, M. K. (2004). Conversational exercitives: Something else we do with our words. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27, 93–111.Google Scholar
McLellan, D. (ed.). (1971). Marx’s Grundrisse. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Marx, K. (1976). Capital. Vol. 1. Translated by Fowkes, Ben. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
McGowan, M. K. (2009). On pragmatics, exercitive speech acts and pornography. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 5(1), 133–55.Google Scholar
Mills, S. (2017). English Politeness and Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Saussure, F., de. ([1916] 1983). Course in General Linguistics. Translated by Harris, Roy. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Sbisà, M. (1984). Illocutionary types. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 93–112.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1975). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (2000). Whorfianism and the linguistic imagination of nationality. In Kroskrity, P. V., ed., Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, pp. 85–138.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2001). Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A frame-based approach, unpublished PhD diss., University of Cambridge, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2011). From Politeness1 to Politeness2: Tracking norms of im/politeness across time and space. Journal of Politeness Research, 7(2), 159–85.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J., Ide, S. and Ehlich, K. (eds.). (1992). Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory, and Practice. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (2002). From polite language to educated language: The re-emergence of an ideology. In Watts, R. and Trudgill, P., eds., Alternative Histories of English. London: Routledge, pp. 155–72.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, M. ([1925] 1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, E. R. (1990). Distinguished lecture: Facing power—old insights, new questions. American Anthropologist, 92(3), 586–96.Google Scholar

References

Archer, D. (2011). Facework and im/politeness across legal contexts: An introduction. Journal of Politeness Research, 7(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Beer, D. (2009). Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious. New Media and Society, 11(6), 985–1002.Google Scholar
Billante, N. and Saunders, P. (2004). Why civility matters. Policy, 18(3), 32–36.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buss, S. (1999). Appearing respectful: The moral significance of manners. Ethics, 109(4), 795–826.Google Scholar
Calhoun, C.. (2000). The virtue of civility. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 29(3), 251–75.Google Scholar
Carter, S. L. (1998). Civility: Manners, Morals, and the Etiquette of Democracy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. (2006). Moral decision-making and the brain. In Illes, J., ed., Neuroethics: Defining the Issues in Theory, Practice, and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. (2017). Introduction. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Davies, B. (2018). Evaluating evaluations: What different types of metapragmatic behaviour can tell us about participants’ understandings of the moral order. Journal of Politeness Research, 14(1), 121–51.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. (2001). Implicit Meanings. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Durkheim, É. ([1925] 1973). Moral Education. Translated by Wilson, E. and Schnurer, H.. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010). A genre approach to the study of im-politeness. International Review of Pragmatics, 2(1), 46–94.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2013). Face, identity, and im/politeness: Looking backwards, moving forward – From Goffman to Practice Theory, Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., Bou-Franch, P. and Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2010). A genre-approach to im-politeness in a Spanish TV talk show: Evidence from corpus-based analysis, questionnaires and focus groups. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 689–723.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. and Vasilaki, M. (2018). The personal and/as the political: Small stories and impoliteness in online discussions of the Greek crisis. Internet Pragmatics, 1(2), 215–40.Google Scholar
Graham, S. L. (2018). Impoliteness and the moral order in online gaming. Internet Pragmatics, 1(2), 303–28.Google Scholar
Frese, M. (2015). Cultural practices, norms, and values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(10), 1327–30.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2009). Impoliteness and identity in the American news media: The ‘culture wars’. Journal of Politeness Research, 5(2), 273–303.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2012). ‘Politics, “lies” and YouTube: A genre approach to assessments of im/politeness on Obama’s 9/9/2009 presidential address’. In Fernández-Amaya, L., López, M. Hernández, Morón, R. Gómez, Cruz, M. Padilla, Borrero, M. Mejias and Barranca, M. Relinque, eds., New Perspectives on (Im)politeness and Interpersonal Communication. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 62–90.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1964). Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social Problems, 11(3), 225–50.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1956). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1963). Behaviour in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Graham, J., Haidt, J. and Nosek, B. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 , 1029–46.Google Scholar
Hardy, S. and Carlo, G. (2005). Identity as a source of moral motivation. Human Development, 48, 232–56.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2008). Morality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 65–72.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. and Craig, J. (2011). How moral foundations theory succeeded in building on sand: A response to Suhler and Churchland. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(9), 2117–22.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. and Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognise. Social Justice Research, 20 , 98–116.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. and Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133 , 55–66.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. and Joseph, C. (2008). The moral mind: How five sets of innate moral intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In Carruthers, P., Laurence, S. and Stich, S., eds., The Innate Mind: Vol. 3. Foundations and the Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 367–91.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 52–72.Google Scholar
Horgan, M. (2019). Strangers and everyday incivilities: Towards a theory of moral affordances in ritualised interaction. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 7(1), 31–54.Google Scholar
Hwang, H., Kim, Y. and Kim, Y. (2018). Influence of discussion incivility on deliberation: An examination of the mediating role of moral indignation. Communication Research, 45(2), 213–40.Google Scholar
Jay, T. (2018). Swearing, moral order, and online communication. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 6(1), 107–26.Google Scholar
Jones, R. H. (2017). Surveillant landscapes. Linguistic Landscape, 3(2), 149–86.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. (2012). Changes in politeness cultures. In Nevelainen, T. and Closs Traugott, E., eds., The Oxford Handbook of The History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 422–431.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. (2017). Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. (2020). Capturing injunctive norm in pragmatics: Meta-reflective evaluations and the moral order. Lingua 237: 102814.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Haugh, M. (2013).  Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Márquez-Reiter, R. (2015). (Im)politeness and (im)morality: Insights from intervention. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2), 239–60.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Fukushima, S. (2018). The meta-conventionalisation and moral order of e-practices: A Japanese case study. Internet Pragmatics, 1(2), 352–78.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Ning, P. (2019). Ritual public humiliation – A case study of Chinese adulterous couples. Acta Linguistica Academica, 66(2),189–208.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z., Parvaresh, V. and Ning, P. (2019). Morality, moral order, and language conflict and aggression – A position paper. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 7(1), 6–30.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z., Ran, Y. and Ning, P. (2018). Public ritual apology – A case study of Chinese. Discourse, Context and Media, 26, 21–31. Google Scholar
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In Goslin, D. A., ed., Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, pp. 387–480.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. T. (2005). Civility and its discontents: or getting in your face. In Lakoff, R. T. and Ide, S., eds., Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 23–43.Google Scholar
Leach, C., Ellemers, N. and Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(2), 234–49.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 9–33.Google Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, N., Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. and Bou-Franch, P. (2011). Online polylogues and impoliteness: The case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube video. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2578–93.Google Scholar
Márquez-Reiter, R. and Orthaber, S. (2018). Exploring the moral compass. Internet Pragmatics, 1(2), 241–70.Google Scholar
Márquez-Reiter, R. and Haugh, M. (2019). Denunciation, blame and the moral turn in public life. Discourse, Context and Media, 28, 35–43.Google Scholar
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mills, S. (2009). Impoliteness in a cultural context. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 1047–60.Google Scholar
Moulinou, I. (2014). Striving to make the difference: Linguistic devices of moral indignation. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 2(1), 74–98.Google Scholar
Molinou, I. (2019). Moral ‘tropes’, moral panic against witnesses and victim in court: explicit and implicit discursive strategies of moral aggression. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 7(1), 103–30.Google Scholar
Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media and Society, 6(2), 259–83.Google Scholar
Parvaresh, V. (2019). Moral impoliteness. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 7(1), 79–104.Google Scholar
Parvaresh, V. and Tayebi, T. (2018). Impoliteness, aggression and the moral order. Journal of Pragmatics, 132, 91–107.Google Scholar
Pearce, W. B. and Littlejohn, S. W. (1997). Moral Conflict: When Social Worlds Collide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Pearson, C., Anderson, L. and Wegner, J. (2001). When workers flout convention: A study of workplace incivility. Human Relations, 54(11), 1387–1419.Google Scholar
Peltonen, M. (2003). The Duel in Early Modern England: Civility, Politeness and Honour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Placencia, M. E. (2001). Inequality in address behavior at public institutions in La Paz, Bolivia. Anthropological Linguistics, 43, 198–217.Google Scholar
Placencia, M. E. (2010). (Des)cortesía, migración y comunicación intercultural. In Orletti, F. and Mariottini, L., eds., (Des)cortesía en español. Espacios teóricos y metodológicos para su estudio. Rome: Roma Universidad Roma Tre – Programa EDICE, pp. 399–430.Google Scholar
Plessner Lyons, N. (1983). Two perspectives: On self, relationships, and morality. Harvard Educational Review, 53(2), 125–45.Google Scholar
Rai, T. S. and Fiske, A. P. (2012). Beyond harm, intention, and dyads: Relationship regulation, virtuous violence, and metarelational morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 189–93.Google Scholar
Rai, T. S. and Fiske, A. P. (2011). Moral psychology is relationship regulation: Moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality. Psychological Review, 118, 57–75.Google Scholar
Rai, T. S. and Fiske, A. P. (2016). The morality of violence. In Sommers, T., ed., A Very Bad Wizard: Morality behind the Curtain, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, pp. 253–71.Google Scholar
Ran, Y. and Zhao, L. (2018). Building mutual affection-based face in conflict mediation: A Chinese relationship management model. Journal of Pragmatics, 129, 185–98.Google Scholar
Rawls, A. W. (1987). The interaction order sui generis: Goffman’s contribution to social theory. Sociological Theory, 5, 136–49.Google Scholar
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practice. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–63.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (1970). Moral decision making and behaviour. In Macauley, M. and Berkowitz, L., eds., Altruism and Helping Behaviour. New York: Academic Press, pp. 127–41.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. (2007). Universalism values and the inclusiveness of our moral universe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 711–28.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C. and Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663–88.Google Scholar
Shweder, R. A., Much, N. C., Mahapatra, M. and Park, L. (1997). The “big three” of morality (autonomy, community, and divinity) and the “big three” explanations of suffering. In Brandt, A. and Rozin, P., eds., Morality and Health. New York: Routledge, pp. 119–69.Google Scholar
Sell, R. (1992). Literary texts and diachronic aspects of politeness. In Watts, R. J., Ide, S. and Ehlich, K., eds., Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 109–29.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. (2019). Im/politeness and in/civility: A neglected relationship? Journal of Pragmatics, 147, 49–64.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2018). “Ya bloody drongo!!!”: Impoliteness as situated moral judgement on Facebook. Internet Pragmatics, 1(2), 271–302.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. and Kádár, D. (2016). The bases of (im)politeness evaluations: Culture, the moral order and the East-West debate. East Asian Pragmatics, 1(1), 73–106.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. and Kádár, D. (2020). Intercultural Politeness: Relating across Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. and Xing, J. (2019). Interdisciplinary perspectives on interpersonal relations and the evaluation process: Culture, norms, and the moral order. Journal of Pragmatics, 151, 141–54.Google Scholar
Suhler, C. L. and Churchland, P. (2001). Can innate, modular “foundations” explain morality? Challenges for Haidt’s moral foundations theory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(9), 2103–16.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M., Catedral, L., Haider, I., Karimzad, F., Melgares, J., Mostacero, C., Nelson, J. and Weissman, B. (2018). Uncivil Twitter: A sociopragmatic analysis, Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 6(1), 26–57.Google Scholar
Turner, G. (2010). Ordinary People and the Media: The Demotic Turn. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Truss, L. (2005). Talk to the Hand: The Utter Bloody Rudeness of the World Today; or, Six Good Reasons to Stay Home and Bolt the Door. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Turiel, E. (1983). The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Varis, P. and van Nuenen, T. (2017). The Internet, language, and virtual interactions. In García, O., Flores, N. and Spotti, M., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 473–88.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (2012). Ideology in Language Use: Pragmatic Guidelines for Empirical Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (1989). Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua. Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 8(2–3), 131–66.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (1999). Language and politeness in early eighteenth century Britain. Pragmatics, 9(1), 5–20.Google Scholar
Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Werkhofer, K. T. (1992). Traditional and modern views: The social constitution and power of politeness. In Watts, R., Ide, S. and Ehlich, K., eds., Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History: Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 155–99.Google Scholar
Wuthnow, R. (1989). Meaning and Moral Order: Explorations in Cultural Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Xie, C. (2018). (Im)politeness, morality and the internet. Internet Pragmatics, 1(2), 205–14.Google Scholar

References

Abrahams, R. (1962). Playing the dozens. Journal of American Folklore, 75, 209–20.Google Scholar
Alberts, J., Kellar-Guenther, Y. and Corman, S. (1996). That’s not funny: Understanding recipients’ responses to teasing. Western Journal of Communication, 60, 337–57.Google Scholar
Antonopoulou, E. and Sifianou, M. (2003). Conversational dynamics of humour: The telephone game in Greek. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(5), 741–69.Google Scholar
Apte, M. L. (1985). Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Approach. London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Ardington, A. (2006). Playfully negotiated activity in girls’ talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 73–95.Google Scholar
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic Theories of Humor. New York: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bateson, G. ([1955] 1972). A theory of play and fantasy. In Bateson, G., ed., Steps to an Ecology of Mind. San Francisco, CA: Chandler, pp. 177–93.Google Scholar
Béal, C. and Mullan, K. (2017). The pragmatics of conversational humour in social visits: French and Australian English. Language and Communication, 55, 24–40Google Scholar
Bell, N. (2007a). Humor comprehension: Lessons learned from cross-cultural communication. Humor, 20(4), 367–87.Google Scholar
Bell, N. (2007b). How native and non-native English speakers adapt to humor in intercultural interaction. Humor, 20(1), 27–48.Google Scholar
Bell, N. (2009). Responses to failed humour. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(9), 1825–36.Google Scholar
Bell, N. (2015). We Are Not Amused: Failed Humor in Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bippus, A. M. (2009). Making sense of humor in young romantic relationships: Understanding partners’ perceptions. Humor, 13(4), 395–418.Google Scholar
Boxer, D. and Cortés-Conde, F. (1997). From bonding and biting: Conversational joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 275–95.Google Scholar
Brône, G. (2008). Hyper- and misunderstanding in interactional humour. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 2027–61.Google Scholar
Buttny, R. (2001). Therapeutic humor in retelling the clients’ tellings. Text, 21(3), 303–26.Google Scholar
Caffi, C. (1994). Metapragmatics. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 5. New York: Pergamon Press, pp. 2461–6.Google Scholar
Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G. and Banks, J. (1997). On the role of humour appreciation in interpersonal attraction: It’s no joking matter. Humor, 10(1), 77–89.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. (2003). Humor in intercultural conversations. Semiotica, 146, 287–306.Google Scholar
Chiaro, D. (1992). The Language of Jokes: Analysing Verbal Play. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chiaro, D. (2009). Cultural divide or unifying factor? Humorous talk in the interaction of bilingual, cross-cultural couples. In Norrick, N. R. and Chiaro, D., eds., Humor in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 211–32.Google Scholar
Chimbwete-Phiri, R. and Schnurr, S. (2017). Negotiating knowledge and creating solidarity: Humour in antenatal counselling sessions at a rural hospital in Malawi. Lingua, 197, 68–82.Google Scholar
Chovanec, J. (2012). Conversational humour and joint fantasizing in online journalism. In Chovanec, J. and Ermida, I., eds., Language and Humour in the Media. Newcastle: CSP, pp. 139–61.Google Scholar
Chovanec, J. (2017). Interactional humour and spontaneity in TV documentaries. Lingua, 197, 34–49.Google Scholar
Coates, J. (2007). Talk in a play frame: More on laughter and intimacy. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 29–49.Google Scholar
Collinson, D. (1988). “Engineering humour”: Masculinity, joking and conflict in shop-floor relations. Organization Studies, 9(2), 181–99.Google Scholar
Coser, R. L. (1959). Some social functions of laughter. Human Relations, 12, 171–82.Google Scholar
Coser, R. L. (1960). Laughter among colleagues: A study of the social functions of humour among the staff of a mental hospital. Psychiatry, 23, 81–95.Google Scholar
Crawford, M. (2003). Gender and humor in social context. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1413–30.Google Scholar
Cuervo, P., Vinita Mahtani-Chugani, M. A., Sanchez Correas, M. A. and Sanz Rubiales, A. (2018). The use of humor in palliative care: A systematic literature review. American Journal of  Hospice and Palliative Medicine, 35(10), 1–13.Google Scholar
Damianakis, T. and Marziali, E. (2011). Community-dwelling older adults’ contextual experiencing of humour. Ageing and Society, 31(1), 110–24.Google Scholar
Davies, C. E. (2003). How English-learners joke with native speakers: An interactional sociolinguistic perspective on humor as collaborative discourse across cultures. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1361–85.Google Scholar
Davies, C. E. (2006). Gendered sense of humor as expressed through aesthetic typifications. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 96–113.Google Scholar
Demjén, Z. (2016). Laughing at cancer: Humour, empowerment, solidarity and coping online. Journal of Pragmatics, 101, 18–30.Google Scholar
Demjén, Z. (2018). Complexity theory and conversational humour: Tracing the birth and decline of a running joke in an online cancer support community. Journal of Pragmatics, 133, 93–104.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25, 219–53.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2011). Joker in the pack: Towards determining the status of humorous framing in conversations. In Dynel, M., ed., The Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 217–41.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2012a). Humour on the house: Interactional construction of metaphor in film discourse. In Chovanec, J. and Ermida, I., eds., Language and Humour in the Media. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 83–106.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2013a). Impoliteness as disaffiliative humour in film talk. In Dynel, M., ed., Developments in Linguistic Humour Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–44.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2013b). When does irony tickle the hearer? Towards capturing the characteristics of humorous irony. In Dynel, M., ed., Developments in Linguistic Humour Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 298–320.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2014). Isn’t it ironic? Defining the scope of humorous irony. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 27, 619–39.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2016a). With or without intentions: Accountability and (un)intentional humour in film talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 95, 67–98.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2016b). Conceptualising conversational humour as (im)politeness: The case of film talk. Journal of Politeness Research, 12(1), 117–47.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2017a). But seriously: On conversational humour and (un)truthfulness. Lingua, 197, 83–102.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2017b). Academics vs. American scriptwriters vs. Academics: A battle over the etic and emic “sarcasm” and “irony” labels. Language and Communication, 55, 69–87.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2018a). Theoretically on Mock Politeness in English and Italian. Journal of Aggression and Conflict, 6(1), 149–65.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2018b). Irony, Deception and Humour: Seeking the Truth about Overt and Covert Untruthfulness. Mouton Series in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. and Poppi, F. I. M. (2018). In tragoedia risus: Analysis of dark humour in post-terrorist attack discourse. Discourse and Communication, 12(4), 382–400.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. and Poppi, F. I. M. (2019). Risum teneatis, amici?: The socio-pragmatics of RoastMe humour. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 1–21.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. and Poppi, F. I. M. (2020). Arcana imperii: The power of humorous retorts to insults on Twitter. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 8(1), 57–97.Google Scholar
Eder, D. (1990). Serious and playful disputes: Variation in conflict talk among female adolescents. In Grimshaw, A. D., ed., Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments and Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67–84.Google Scholar
Emerson, J. P. (1969). Negotiating the serious import of humor. Sociometry, 32, 169–81.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. and Lampert, M. D. (1992). Gender differences in the construction of humorous talk. In Hall, K., Buchholtz, E. and Moonwomon, B., eds., Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 108–17.Google Scholar
Ferreira, A. V. A. (2012). The humorous display of transgressor femininities: ‘Sharing a laugh’ in Spanish/Galician friendly talk among young women. Sociolinguistic Studies, 6(1), 121–47.Google Scholar
Fine, G. A. and De Soucey, M. (2005). Joking cultures: Humor themes as social regulation in group life. Humor, 18, 1–22.Google Scholar
Ford, T. E. and Ferguson, M. A. (2004). Social consequences of disparagement humor: A prejudiced norm theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(1), 79–94.Google Scholar
Georgalidou, M. and Kaili, H. (2018). The pragmatics of humour in bilingual conversations. In Tsakona, V. and Chovanec, J., eds., The Dynamics of Interactional Humor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 77–103.Google Scholar
Geyer, N. (2010). Teasing and ambivalent face in Japanese multi-party discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2120–30.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R., Bryant, G. and Colston, H. (2014). Where’s the humor in irony? Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 27, 575–95.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2006). “Lift your game Martina!”: Deadpan jocular irony and the ethnopragmatics of Australian English. In Goddard, C., ed., Ethnopragmatics: Understanding Discourse in Cultural Context. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 65–97.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2009). “Not taking yourself too seriously in Australian English: Semantic explications, cultural scripts, corpus evidence.” Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(1), 29–53.Google Scholar
Gradin Franzén, A. and Karin, A. (2013). Teasing, laughing and disciplinary humor: Staff–youth interaction in detention home treatment. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 167–83.Google Scholar
Graham, E., Papa, M. and Brooks, G. (1992) Functions of humour in conversation: Conceptualization and measurement, Western Journal of Communication, 56(2), 161–83.Google Scholar
Grainger, K. (2004). Verbal play on the hospital ward: Solidarity or power? Multilingua, 23(1–2), 39–59.Google Scholar
Habib, R. (2008). Humor and disagreement: Identity construction and cross-cultural enrichment. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1117–45.Google Scholar
Haddington, P. (2011). Serious or non-serious? Sequential ambiguity and disavowing a prior stance. Functions of Language, 18(2), 149–82.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2010). Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation, and face. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2106–19.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2017). Jocular language play, social action and (dis)affiliation in conversational interaction. In Bell, N., ed., Multiple Perspectives on Language Play. Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 143–68.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Bousfield, D. (2012). Mock impoliteness in interactions amongst Australian and British speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1099–1114.Google Scholar
Hay, J. (1994). Jocular abuse patterns in mixed-group interaction, Wellington Working Papers in Linguistics, 6, 26–55.Google Scholar
Hay, J. (2000). Functions of humour in the conversations of men and women. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 709–42.Google Scholar
Hay, J. (2001). The pragmatics of humor support. Humor, 14(1), 55–82.Google Scholar
Hirst, J. (2009). Sense and Nonsense in Australian History. Melbourne: Blanc Inc Agenda.Google Scholar
Homes, J. (2000). Politeness, power and provocation: How humour functions in the workplace. Discourse Studies, 2, 159–85.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Hay, J. (1997). Humour as an ethnic boundary market in New Zealand interaction. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 18(2), 127–51.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Marra, M. (2002a). Over the edge? Subversive humor between colleagues and friends. Humor, 15(1), 65–87.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Marra, M. (2002b). Having a laugh at work: How humour contributes to workplace culture. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1683–1710.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Schnurr, S. (2005). Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 121–49.Google Scholar
Holt, E. (2013). ‘‘There’s many a true word said in jest’’: Seriousness and nonseriousness in interaction. In Glenn, P. and Holt, E., eds., Studies of Laughter in Interaction. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 69–89.Google Scholar
Kane, T. R., Suls, J. and Tedeschi, J. T. (1977). Humor as a tool of social interaction. In Chapman, A. J. and Foot, H. C., eds., It’s a Funny Thing, Humour. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon, pp. 13–16.Google Scholar
Kapogianni, E. (2011). Irony via “surrealism”. In Dynel, M., ed., The Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 51–68.Google Scholar
Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A., Young, R. and Heerey, E. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 229–48.Google Scholar
Kochman, T. (1983). The boundary between play and nonplay in black verbal duelling. Language in Society, 12, 329–37.Google Scholar
Kotthoff, H. (2006). Gender and humor: The state of the art. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 4–25.Google Scholar
Kotthoff, H. (2007). Pragmatics of performance and the analysis of conversational humor. Humor, 19(3), 271–304.Google Scholar
Kotthoff, H. (2009). An interactional approach to irony development. In Norrick, N. R. and Delia, C., eds., Humor in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 49–78.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Rules for ritual insults. In Sudnow, D., ed., Studies in Social Interaction. New York: The Free Press, pp. 120–69.Google Scholar
Lampert, M. and Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (2006). Risky laughter: Teasing and self-directed joking among male and female friends. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 51–72.Google Scholar
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lennox Terrion, J. and Ashforth, B. E. (2000). From ‘I’ to ‘we’: The role of putdown humour and identity in the development of a temporary group. Human Relations, 55(1), 55–88.Google Scholar
Lightner, R. M., Bollmer, J. M., Harris, M. J., Milich, R. and Scambler, D. J. (2000). What do you say to teasers? Parent and child evaluations of responses to teasing. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(4), 403–27.Google Scholar
Long, D. L. and Graesser, A. C. (1988). Wit and humour in discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 11, 35–60.Google Scholar
Lundquist, L. (2014). Danish humor in cross-cultural professional settings: Linguistic and social aspects. Humor, 27(1), 141–63.Google Scholar
Maíz-Arévalo, C. (2015). Jocular mockery in computer-mediated communication: A contrastive study of a Spanish and English Facebook community. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2), 289–327.Google Scholar
Martin, R. (2007). The Psychology of Humor. An Integrative Approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Martin, R. and Ford, T. (2018). The Psychology of Humour. An Integrative Approach. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Martineau, H. W. (1972). A model for the social function of humour. In Goldstein, J. H. and McGhee, P. E., eds., The Psychology of Humour. New York: Academic Press, pp. 101–25.Google Scholar
Mateo, J. and Yus, F. (2013). Towards a cross-cultural pragmatic taxonomy of insults. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 1(1), 87–114.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (2011). Painful to playful: Quotidian frames in the conversational discourse of older Japanese women. Language in Society, 40(5), 591–616.Google Scholar
McCreaddie, M. A. (2016). Poor wee souls and fraggle rock: The visceral humor of nurse-peers in a non-accomplishment setting. Humor, 29(2), 175–96.Google Scholar
Moalla, A. (2015). Intercultural strategies to co-construct and interpret humor. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 366–85.Google Scholar
Mulkay, M. (1988). On Humour: Its Nature and Its Place in Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Nielsen, M. M. (2011). On humour in prison. European Journal of Criminology, 8, 500–514.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (1993). Conversational Joking: Humor in Everyday Talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. and Klein, N. (2008). Class clowns: Talking out of turn with an orientation toward humor. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. and Spitz, A. (2008). Humor as a resource for mitigating conflict in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(10), 1661–86.Google Scholar
Partington, A. (2006). The Linguistics of Laughter. A Corpus-Assisted Study of Laughter-Talk. Oxon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pizzini, F. (1991). Communication hierarchies in humour: Gender differences in the obstetrical/gynaecological setting. Discourse and Society, 2, 477–88.Google Scholar
Plester, B. A. and Sayers, J. (2007). “Taking the piss”: Functions of banter in the IT industry. Humor, 20(2), 157–87.Google Scholar
Plester, B. and Orams, M. (2008). Send in the clowns: The role of the joker in three New Zealand IT companies. Humor, 21(3), 253–81.Google Scholar
Priego-Valverde, B. (2009). Failed humor in conversation: A double voicing analysis. In Norrick, N. R. and Chiaro, D., eds., Humor in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 165–86.Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1940). On joking relationships. Africa, 13, 195–210.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, A. (2015). Laughter in times of uncertainty: Negotiating gender and social distance in Bahraini women’s humorous talk. Humor, 28(4), 511–39.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, S. and Collinson, D. (1995) ‘Having fun?’ Humour as resistance in Brazil. Organization Studies, 16(5), 739–68.Google Scholar
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007). Humour in business: A double-edged sword. A study of humour and style shifting in intercultural business meetings. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 4–28.Google Scholar
Schnurr, S. (2008). Surviving in a man’s world with a sense of humour: An analysis of women leader’s use of humour at work. Leadership, 4(3), 299–319.Google Scholar
Schnurr, S. and Chan, A. (2011). When laughter is not enough: Responding to teasing and self-denigrating humor at work. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 20–35.Google Scholar
Schnurr, S. and Holmes, J. (2009). Using humour to do masculinity at work. In Norrick, N. R. and Chiaro, D., eds., Humor in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 101–23.Google Scholar
Schnurr, S. and Rowe, C. (2008). The “dark side” of humour: An analysis of subversive humour in workplace emails. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 4, 109–30.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2013). Decoding encoded (im)politeness: ‘Cause on my teasing you can depend’. In Dynel, M., ed., Developments in Linguistic Humour Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 263–88.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2014). “When a joke’s a joke and when it’s too much”: Mateship as a key to interpreting jocular FTAs in Australian English. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 121–39.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2015). “There’s definitely gonna be some serious carnage in this house” or how to be genuinely impolite in Big Brother UK. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 3(2), 317–48.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2016). “Everything he says to me it’s like he stabs me in the face”: Frontstage and backstage reactions to teasing. In Bell, N., ed., Multiple Perspectives on Language Play. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 169–98.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2017a). What makes teasing impolite in Australian and British English? “Step[ping] over those lines […] you shouldn’t be crossing”. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture, 13(2), 175–207.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2017b). Funniness and “the preferred reaction” to jocularity in Australian and British English: An analysis of interviewees’ metapragmatic comments. Language and Communication, 55, 1–9.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2017c). “It’s just a bit of cultural […] lost in translation”: Australian and British intracultural and intercultural metapragmatic evaluations of jocularity. Lingua, 197, 50–67.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2019a). Juggling identities in interviews: The metapragmatics of ‘doing humour’. Journal of Pragmatics, 152, 216–27.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2019b). Conversational Humour and (Im)politeness: A Pragmatic Analysis of Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. and Dynel, M. (2017). Approaching conversational humour culturally: A survey of the emerging area of investigation. Language and Communication, 55, 1–9.Google Scholar
Stallone, L. and Haugh, M. (2017). Joint fantasising as relational practice in Brazilian Portuguese interactions. Language and Communication, 55, 10–23.Google Scholar
Straehle, C. (1993). ‘Samuel?’ ‘Yes dear?’ Teasing and conversational rapport. In Tannen, D., ed., Framing in Discourse. New York: Open University Press, pp. 210–29.Google Scholar
Terrion, J. and Ashforth, B. (2002). From ‘I’ to ‘we’: The role of putdown humour and identity in the development of a temporary group. Human Relations, 55(1), 55–88.Google Scholar
Terry, C. M. (1997). The function of humor for prison inmates. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 13(23), 23–40.Google Scholar
Tsakona, V. (2018). Online joint fictionalization. In Tsakona, V. and Chovanec, J., eds., The Dynamics of Interactional Humor: Creating and Negotiating Humor in Everyday Encounters. Topics in Humor Research 7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 229–55.Google Scholar
Vásquez, C. and Creel, S. (2017). Conviviality through creativity: Appealing to the reblog in Tumblr Chat posts. Discourse, Context and Media, 20, 59–69.Google Scholar
Veale, T., Feyaerts, K. and Brône, G. (2006). The cognitive mechanisms of adversarial humor. Humor, 19, 305–40.Google Scholar
Vine, B., Kell, S., Marra, M. and Holmes, J. (2009). Boundary-marking humor: Institutional, gender and ethnic demarcation in the workplace. In Norrick, N. R. and Chiaro, D., eds., Humor in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 125–39.Google Scholar
Young, L. S. and Bippus, A. M. (2001). ‘Does it make a difference if they hurt you in a funny way? Humorously and non-humorously phrased hurtful messages in personal relationships.’ Communication Quarterly, 49(1), 35–53.Google Scholar
Zajdman, A. (1995). Humorous face-threatening acts: Humor as strategy. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 325–39.Google Scholar
Zare, J. (2016). Self-mockery: A study of Persian multi-party interactions. Text andTalk, 36(6), 789–81.Google Scholar
Zillmann, D. and Stocking, H. (1976). Putdown humor. Journal of Communication, 26, 154–63.Google Scholar
Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and Sense of Humour. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

References

Ambrazaitis, G. and House, D. (2017), Multimodal prominences: Exploring the patterning and usage of focal pitch accents, head beats and eyebrow beats in Swedish television news readings. Speech Communication, 95, 100–113.Google Scholar
Attardo, S. (2000). Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 793–826.Google Scholar
Attardo, S., Eisterhold, J., Hay, J. and Poggi, I. (2003). Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. International Journal of Humor Research, 16, 243–60.Google Scholar
Bavelas, J. B., Gerwing, J. and Healing, S. (2014). Including facial gestures in gesture-speech ensembles. In Seyfeddinipur, M. and Gullberg, M., eds., From Gesture in Conversation to Visible Action as Utterance: Essays in Honor of Adam Kendon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 15–34.Google Scholar
Benitez-Quiroz, F. C., Wilburb, R. B. and Martinez, A. M. (2016). The not face: A grammaticalization of facial expressions of emotion. Cognition, 150, 77–84.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. and Weenink, D. (2017). Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.35.Google Scholar
Borràs-Comes, J., Kiagia, E. and Prieto, P. (2019). Epistemic intonation and epistemic gesture are mutually co-expressive: Empirical results from two intonation–gesture matching tasks. Journal of Pragmatics, 150, 39–52.Google Scholar
Breen, M., Fedorenko, E., Wagner, M. and Gibson, E. (2010). Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7–9), 1044–98.Google Scholar
Brown, L. and Winter, B. (2019). Multimodal indexicality in Korean: “Doing deference” and “performing intimacy” through nonverbal behavior. Journal of Politeness Research, 15(1), 25–54.Google Scholar
Brown, L., Winter, B., Idemaru, K. and Grawunder, S. (2014). Phonetics and politeness: Perceiving Korean honorific and non-honorific speech through phonetic cues. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 45–60.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bryant, G. A. (2010). Prosodic contrasts in ironic speech. Discourse Processes, 47(7), 545–66.Google Scholar
Bryant, G. A. and Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Recognizing verbal irony in spontaneous speech. Metaphor and Symbol, 17(2), 99–119.Google Scholar
Bryant, G. A. and Fox Tree, J. E. (2005). Is there an ironic tone of voice? Language and Speech, 48(3), 257–77.Google Scholar
Bryant, G. A. (2011). Verbal irony in the wild. Pragmatics and Cognition, 19(2), 291–309.Google Scholar
Cavé, C., Guaïtella, I., Bertrand, R., Santi, S., Harlay, F. and Espesser, R. (1996). About the relationship between eyebrow movements and F0 variations. Proceedings of ICSLP, 96, 2175–9.Google Scholar
Crespo-Sendra, V., Kaland, K., Swerts, M. and Prieto, P. (2013). Perceiving incredulity: The role of intonation and facial gestures. Journal of Pragmatics, 47, 1–13.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011a). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). “It’s not what you said, it’s how you said it!”: Prosody and impoliteness. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group, ed., Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Mouton Series in Pragmatics 8. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 57–83.Google Scholar
Devís, E. and Cantero, F. (2014). The intonation of mitigating politeness in Catalan. Journal of Politeness Research, 10, 127–49.Google Scholar
de Haan, F. (2001). The relation between modality and evidentiality. In Müller, R. and Reis, M., eds., Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 9. Hamburg, Germany: H. Buske, pp. 201–16.Google Scholar
Dimitrova, D. V., Stowe, L. A., Redeker, G. and Hoeks, J. C. (2012). Less is not more: Neural responses to missing and superfluous accents in context. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(12), 2400–2418.Google Scholar
Dimitrova, D., Chu, M., Wang, L., Özyürek, A. and Hagoort, P. (2016). Beat that word: How listeners integrate beat gesture and focus in multimodal speech discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 28(9), 1255–69.Google Scholar
Escandell, V. (2017). Intonation and evidentiality in Spanish polar interrogatives. Language and Speech, 60(2), 224–41.Google Scholar
Esteve-Gibert, N., Borràs-Comes, J., Asor, E., Swerts, M. and Prieto, P. (2017). The timing of head movements: The role of prosodic heads and edges. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , 6(141), 4727–39.Google Scholar
Esteve-Gibert, N. and Guellaï, B. (2018). Prosody in the auditory and visual domains: A developmental perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 9.Google Scholar
Gibbon, D. (2009). Gesture theory is linguistics: On modelling multimodality as prosody. Proceedings of the Twenty-third Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, pp. 9–18.Google Scholar
González-Fuente, S. (2017). Audiovisual Prosody and Verbal Irony. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Departament of Translation and Language Sciences.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M., Goodwin, C. and Yaeger-Dror, M. (2002). Multi-modality in girls’ game disputes. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1621–49.Google Scholar
Gravano, A. and Hirschberg, J. (2011). Turn-taking cues in task-oriented dialogue, Computer Speech and Language, 25, 601–34.Google Scholar
Guellaï, B., Langus, A. and Nespor, M. (2014). Prosody in the hands of the speaker. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 700.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2002). Intonation and interpretation: Phonetics and phonology. In Bel, B. and Marlien, I., eds., Proceedings of the Speech Prosody. Aix-en- Provence, France: Université de Provence, pp. 47–57.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The Phonology of Tone and Intonation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, M., Chang, W. and Kádár, D. (2015). Doing deference: Identities and relational practices in Chinese online discussion boards. Pragmatics, 25(1), 73–98.Google Scholar
Henton, C. G. and Bladon, R. A. W. (1985). Breathiness in normal female speech: Inefficiency versus desirability. Language and Communication, 5, 221–7.Google Scholar
Hillewaert, S. (2016). Tactics and tactility: A sensory semiotics of handshakes in coastal Kenya. American Anthropologist, 118(1), 49–66.Google Scholar
Hübscher, I. (2018). Preschoolers’ pragmatic development: How prosody and gesture lend a helping hand. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Hübscher, I., Borràs-Comes, J. and Prieto, P. (2017). Prosodic mitigation characterizes Catalan formal speech: The Frequency Code reassessed. Journal of Phonetics, 65, 145–59.Google Scholar
Hübscher, I. and Prieto, P. (2019). Gestural and prosodic development act as sister systems and jointly pave the way for children’s sociopragmatic development. Frontiers in Psychology, 10.Google Scholar
Hübscher, I., Sánchez-Conde, C., Borràs-Comes, J., Vincze, L. and Prieto, P. (submitted). Multimodal mitigation: How facial and body cues index social meaning in Catalan requests.Google Scholar
Idemaru, K., Winter, B. and Brown, L. (2019). Cross-cultural multimodal politeness: The phonetics of Japanese deferential speech in comparison to Korean. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(5), 517–56.Google Scholar
Idemaru, K., Winter, B., Brown, L. and Oh, G. E. (2020). Loudness trumps pitch in politeness judgments: evidence from Korean deferential speech. Language and Speech, 60, 123–48.Google Scholar
Ito, M. (2004). Politeness and voice quality – The alternative method to measure aspiration noise. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Speech Prosody. Nara, Japan: International Speech Communication Association pp. 213–16.Google Scholar
Ito, K. and Speer, S. R. (2008). Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 541–73.Google Scholar
Jun, S. (2005). Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jun, S. (2014). Prosodic Typology 2: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kita, S. and Essegbey, J. (2001). Pointing left in Ghana: How a taboo on the use of the left hand influences gestural practice. Gesture, 1(1), 73–95.Google Scholar
Krahmer, E. and Swerts, M. (2005). How children and adults produce and perceive uncertainty in audiovisual speech. Language and Speech, 48(1), 29–53.Google Scholar
Krahmer, E. and Swerts, M. (2007). The effects of visual beats on prosodic prominence: Acoustic analyses, auditory perception and visual perception. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(3), 396–414.Google Scholar
Krivokapic, J., Tiede, M. K., Tyrone, M. E. and Goldenberg, D. (2016). Speech and manual gesture coordination in a pointing task. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Speech Prosody, pp. 1240–44.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2016). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Swerts, M. and Krahmer, E. (2005). Audiovisual prosody and feeling of knowing. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 81–94.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (2008). Intonational Phonology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lempert, M. (2011). Barack Obama, being sharp: Indexical order in the pragmatics of precision-grip gesture. Gesture, 11(3), 241–70.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. and Holler, J. (2014). The origin of human multi-modal communication. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 369(1651), 20130302.Google Scholar
Lima, C. F., Castro, S. L. and Scott, S. K. (2013). When voices get emotional: A corpus of nonverbal vocalizations for research on emotion processing. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1234–45.Google Scholar
Lin, H., Kwock-Ping, J. T. and Fon, J. (2006). An acoustic study on the paralinguistic prosody in the politeness talk in Taiwan Mandarin. Proceedings from ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop on Experimental Linguistics, pp. 173–6.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McKinnon, S. and Prieto, P. (2014). The role of prosody and gesture in the perception of mock impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research, 10(2), 185–219.Google Scholar
Nadeu, M. and Prieto, P. (2011). Pitch range, gestural information, and perceived politeness in Catalan. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(3), 841–54.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1993). Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(3), 287–306.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1984). An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 of voice. Phonetica, 41, 1–16.Google Scholar
Ohara, Y. (2001). Finding one’s voice in Japanese: A study of the pitch levels of L2 users. In Pavlenko, A., Brackledge, A., Piller, I. and Teutsch-Dwye, M., eds., Multilingualism, Second Language Learning, and Gender. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 231–54.Google Scholar
Ola Orie, O. (2009). Pointing the Yoruba way. Gesture, 9(2), 237–61.Google Scholar
Orozco, L. (2008). Peticiones corteses y factores prosódicos. In Herrera, Z. E. and Martín Butragueño, P., eds., Fonología instrumental. Patrones fónicos y variación. México DF: El Colegio de México, pp. 335–55.Google Scholar
Podesva, R. J. (2007). Phonation type as a stylistic variable: The use of falsetto in constructing a persona. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(4), 478–504.Google Scholar
Podesva, R. J. and Callier, P. (2015). Voice quality and identity. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 173–94.Google Scholar
Prieto, P., Borràs-Comes, J., Tubau, S. and Espinal, T. (2013). Prosody and gesture constrain the interpretation of double negation. Lingua, 131, 136–50.Google Scholar
Prieto, P. and Borràs-Comes, J. (2018). Question intonation contours as dynamic epistemic operators. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 36(2), 563–86.Google Scholar
Prieto, P., Cravotta, A., Kushch, O., Rohrer, P. L. and Vilà-Giménez, I. (2018). Deconstructing beat gestures: A labelling proposal. Proceedings of the International Conference on Speech Prosody 2018, Poznan, Poland, 13–16 June.Google Scholar
Prieto, P., Puglesi, C., Borràs-Comes, J., Arroyo, E. and Blat, J. (2015). Exploring the contribution of prosody and gesture to the perception of focus using an animated agent. Journal of Phonetics, 49(1), 41–54.Google Scholar
Rockwell, P. (2000). Lower, slower, louder: Vocal cues of sarcasm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(5), 483–95.Google Scholar
Roseano, P., González, M., Borràs-Comes, J. and Prieto, P. (2016). Communicating epistemic stance: How speech and gesture patterns reflect epistemicity and evidentiality. Discourse Processes, 53(3), 135–74.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. and Ren, A. (2018). The prosodic characteristics of non-referential co-speech gestures in a sample of academic-lecture-style speech. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1514.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of social life. Language and Communication, 23, 193–229.Google Scholar
Stadler, S. (2007). Multimodal (Im)politeness: The Verbal, Prosodic and Non-Verbal Realization of Disagreement in German and New Zealand English. Hamburg, Germany: Verlag Dr. Kovac.Google Scholar
Swerts, M. and Krahmer, E. (2005). Audiovisual prosody and feeling of knowing. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 81–94.Google Scholar
Tessendorf, S. (2007). Pragmatic functions of gestures: The case of the ‘brushing aside gesture’ in Spanish conversation. Proceedings of the International Pragmatics Association Conference 2007, Gothenburg, Sweden, 8–12 July.Google Scholar
Van Bezooijen, R. (1995). Sociocultural aspects of pitch differences between Japanese and Dutch women. Language and Speech, 38(3), 253–65.Google Scholar
Vanrell, M. M., Stella, A., Gili-Fivela, B. and Prieto, P. (2013). Prosodic manifestations of the Effort Code in Catalan, Italian, and Spanish contrastive focus. Journal of the International Phonetics Association, 43(2), 195–220.Google Scholar
Vanrell, M. M., Armstrong, M. and Prieto, P. (2017). Experimental evidence for the role of intonation in evidential marking. Language and Speech, 60(2), 242–59.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. (2003). Why pointing with the index finger is not a universal (in sociocultural and semiotic terms). In Kita, S., eds., Pointing: Where Language, Culture, and Cognition Meet. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 171–215.Google Scholar
Winter, B. and Grawunder, S. (2012). The phonetic profile of Korean formal and informal speech registers. Journal of Phonetics, 40(6), 808–15.Google Scholar
Yamazawa, H. and Hollien, H. (1992). Speaking fundamental frequency pattern of Japanese women. Phonetica, 49, 128–40.Google Scholar
Yuasa, I. P. (2010). Creaky voice: A new feminine voice quality for young urban-oriented upwardly mobile American women? American Speech, 85(3), 315–37.Google Scholar
Zellers, M., House, D. and Alexanderson, S. (2016). Prosody and hand gesture at turn boundaries in Swedish. Proceedings of the International Conference on Speech Prosody, pp. 831–5.Google Scholar

References

Albritton, A. (2017). Emotions in the ether: Strategies for effective emotional expression in text-messages. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 7(2), 50–58.Google Scholar
Androutsopoulos, J. (2006). Introduction: Special issue on sociolinguistics and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4), 419–38.Google Scholar
Belk, R. W. and Llamas, R. (eds.). (2013). The Routledge Companion to Digital Consumption. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bolander, B. and Locher, M. (2014). Doing sociolinguistic research on computer-mediated data: A review of four methodological issues. Discourse, Context & Media, 3, 14–26.Google Scholar
Bou-Franch, P. and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (eds.). (2019). Analyzing Digital Discourse: New Insights and Future Directions. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Broadhurst, S. and Price, S. (eds.). (2017). Digital Bodies: Creativity and Technology in the Arts and Humanities. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cheng, Z. and Guo, T. (2015). The formation of social identity and self-identity based on knowledge contribution in virtual communities: An inductive route model. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 229–41.Google Scholar
Creeber, G. and Martin, R. (eds.). (2009). Digital Cultures: Understanding New Media. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Gillings, M. (2019). Pragmatics: Data trends. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 4–14.Google Scholar
Danesi, M. (2014). Forging a linguistic identity in the age of the internet. Forum Italicum, 48(2), 227–37.Google Scholar
Danesi, M. (2017). The Semiotics of Emoji: The Rise of Visual Language in the Age of the Internet. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V. (2004). Norms and principles: Putting social and cognitive pragmatics together. In Márquez-Reiter, R. and Placencia, M. E., eds., Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 347–71.Google Scholar
Fussell, S. R. and Moss, M. M. (1998). Figurative language in emotional communication. In Fussell, S. R. and Kreuz, R. J., eds., Social and Cognitive Approaches to Interpersonal Communication. New York: Erlbaum, pp. 113–41.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. and Bou-Franch, P. (2019). Introduction to analyzing digital discourse: New insights and future directions. In Bou-Franch, P. and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., eds., Analyzing Digital Discourse: New Insights and Future Directions. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 3–22.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (2006). Postscript: Computer-mediated communication in sociolinguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4), 548–57.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. and Spilioti, T. (eds.). (2016). The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Georgalou, M. (2017). Discourse and Identity on Facebook: How We Use Language and Multimodal Texts to Present Identity Online. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Golato, A. (2017). Naturally occurring data. In Barron, A., Gu, Y. and Steen, G., eds., Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 21–26.Google Scholar
Graham, S. L. and Hardaker, C. (2017). (Im)politeness in digital communication. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 785–814.Google Scholar
Greitemeyer, T. (2016). Facebook and people’s state self-esteem: The impact of the number of other users’ Facebook friends. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 182–6.Google Scholar
Guegan, J. and Michinov, E. (2011). Internet communication and identities dynamics: A psychosocial analysis. Psychologie Française, 56(4), 223–38.Google Scholar
Hannam, K., Butler, G. and Paris, C. M. 2014. Developments and key issues in tourism mobilities. Annals of Tourism Research, 44, 171–85.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2010). When is an email really offensive? Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research, 6(1), 7–31.Google Scholar
Haugh, M., Chang, W. M. and Kádár, D. Z. (2015). Doing deference: Identities and relational practices in Chinese online discussion boards. Pragmatics, 25(1), 73–98.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet 4.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C., Stein, D. and Virtanen, T. (eds.). (2013). Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, C. R. and Bublitz, W. (eds.). (2017). Pragmatics of Social Media. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
John, N. A. (2017). The Age of Sharing. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (2018). Data in pragmatic research. In Jucker, A. H., Schneider, K. P. and Bublitz, W., eds., Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 3–36.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Dürscheid, C. (2012). The linguistics of keyboard-to-screen communication. A new terminological framework. Linguistik Online, 56, 39–64.Google Scholar
Lagerkvist, A. (2019). Digital Existence: Ontology, Ethics and Transcendence in Digital Culture. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lane, J. (2019). The Digital Street. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2006). On the human “interaction engine”. In Enfield, N. K. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality. Oxford: Berg, pp. 39–69.Google Scholar
Maghrabi, R. O., Oakley, R. L. and Nemati, H. R. (2014). The impact of self-selected identity on productive or perverse social capital in social network sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 367–71.Google Scholar
Marmaridou, S. (2011). Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. In Bublitz, W. and Norrick, N. R., eds., Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77–106.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. and Placencia, M. E. (2005). Spanish Pragmatics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mey, J. L. (2016). Pragmatics seen through the prism of society. In Capone, A. and Mey, J. L., eds., Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 15–41.Google Scholar
Ohler, J. B. (2010). Digital Community, Digital Citizen. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Parks, M. R. (2011). Social network sites as virtual communities. In Papacharissi, Z., ed., A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. London: Routledge, pp. 105–23.Google Scholar
Petroni, S. (2019). How social media shape identities and discourses in professional digital settings: Self-communication or self-branding? In Bou-Franch, P. and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., eds., Analyzing Digital Discourse: New Insights and Future Directions. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 251–81.Google Scholar
Potter, J. (2002). Two kinds of natural. Discourse Studies, 4(4), 539–42.Google Scholar
Rainie, L. and Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The New Social Operating System. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reyes, A. (2019). Virtual communities: Interaction, identity and authority in digital communication. Text and Talk, 39(1), 99–120.Google Scholar
Salimkhan, G., Manago, A. M. and Greenfield, P. M. (2010). The construction of the virtual self on MySpace. Cyberpsychology, 4(1), Article 1.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. and Spiridoula Bella, S. (2019). Twitter, politeness, self-presentation. In Bou-Franch, P. and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., eds., Analyzing Digital Discourse: New Insights and Future Directions. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 341–65.Google Scholar
Speer, S. A. (2002). “Natural” and “contrived” data: A sustainable distinction? Discourse Studies, 4(4), 511–25.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stern, S. (2008). Producing sites, exploring identities: Youth online authorship. In Buckingham, D., ed., Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 95–118.Google Scholar
Tagg, C. 2015. Exploring Digital Communication: Language in Action. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tanis, M. and Postmes, T. (2007). Two faces of anonymity: Paradoxical effects of cues to identity in CMC. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(2), 955–70.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M., Catedral, L., Haider, I., Karimzad, F., Melgares, J., Mostacero-Pinilla, C., Nelson, J. and Weissman, B. (2018). Uncivil Twitter: A sociopragmatic analysis. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 6(1), 26–57.Google Scholar
Upadhyay, S. R. (2010). Identity and impoliteness in computer-mediated reader responses. Journal of Politeness Research, 6(1), 105–27.Google Scholar
Vitak, J. and Kim, J. (2014). “You can’t block people offline”: Examining how Facebook’s affordances shape the disclosure process. In Proceedings of CSCW’14: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, pp. 461–74.Google Scholar
Walther, J. B., Liang, Y. H., DeAndrea, D. C., Tong, S. T., Carr, C. T. Sppottswood, E. L. and Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2011). The effect of feedback on identity shift in computer-mediated communication. Media Psychology, 14(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
White, N. R. and White, P. B. (2007). Home and away: Tourists in a connected world. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 88–104.Google Scholar
Wiseman, R. (2013). What boys want. Time, 12 February.Google Scholar
Xie, C. (2018a). (Im)politeness, morality and the internet. Internet Pragmatics, 1(2), 205–14.Google Scholar
Xie, C. (2018b). (Im)politeness and moral order in online interactions. Special issue. Internet Pragmatics, 1(2).Google Scholar
Xie, C. (2018c). What’s in a photo? Identity struggles on WeChat. Keynote speech presented at the First International Conference on Internet Pragmatics, Fujian Normal University, 21–23 September.Google Scholar
Xie, C. and Yus, F. (2017). An internet dialogue on internet pragmatics. Foreign Language and Literature Studies, 34(2), 75–92.Google Scholar
Xie, C. and Yus, F. (2018). Introducing internet pragmatics. Internet Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
Xie, C., Yus, F. and Haberland, H. (eds.). (2021). Approaches to Internet Pragmatics: Theory and Practice, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (1998). A decade of relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 305–45.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2005). Attitudes and emotions through written text: The case of textual deformation in internet chat rooms. Pragmalingüística, 13, 147–74.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2007). Virtualidades reales. Nuevas formas de comunidad en la era de Internet [Real Virtualities: New Norms of Community at the internet Age]. Alicante: University of Alicante.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2011). Cyberpragmatics: Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2014a). Not all emoticons are created equal. Linguagem em (Dis)curso, 14(3), 511–29.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2014b). El discurso de las identidades en línea: El caso de Facebook [The discourse of online identity: The case of Facebook]. Discurso and Sociedad, 8(3), 398–426.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2015). Discourse and identity. In Wright, J. D., ed., International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., vol. 6. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 498–502.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2016). Discourse, contextualization and identity shaping: The case of social networking sites and virtual worlds. In Carrió-Pastor, M. L., ed., Technology Implementation in Higher Education for Second Language Teaching and Translation Studies: New Tools, New Approaches. Singapore: Springer, pp. 71–88.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2017). Contextual constraints and non-propositional effects in WhatsApp communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 114, 66–86.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2018a). Identity-related issues in meme communication. Internet Pragmatics, 1(1), 113–33.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2018b). The interface between pragmatics and internet-mediated communication: Applications, extensions and adjustments. In Ilie, C. and Norrick, N., eds., Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 267–90.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2018c). Relevance from and beyond propositions: The case of online identity. In Nasu, H. and Strassheim, J., eds., Relevance and Irrelevance: Theories, Factors and Challenges. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 119–40.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2019a). Multimodality in memes: A cyberpragmatic approach. In Bou-Franch, P. and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., eds., Analyzing Digital Discourse: New Insights and Future Directions. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 105–32.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2019b). An outline of some future research issues for internet pragmatics. Internet Pragmatics, 2(1), 1–33.Google Scholar

References

Angouri, J. (2007). Language in the workplace: A multimethod study of communicative activity in seven multinational companies situated in Europe. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Angouri, J. (2012). Managing disagreement in problem solving meeting talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1565–79.Google Scholar
Angouri, J. and Marra, M. (2010). Corporate meetings as genre: A study of the role of the chair in corporate meeting talk. Text and Talk, 30, 615–36.Google Scholar
Angouri, J. and Marra, M. (eds.). (2011). Constructing Identities at Work. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Barron, A. and Schneider, K. P. (2009). Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language use in interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(4), 425–42.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. ([1987] 1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. ([1972] 1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Vol. 16, Translated by Nice, R.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clyne, M. (1994). Inter-Cultural Communication at Work: Discourse Structures across Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. and Jaworski, A. (2004). Sociolinguistic perspectives on metalanguage: Reflexivity, evaluation and ideology. In Jaworski, A., Coupland, N. and Galasinski, D., eds., Metalanguage: Social and Ideological Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 15–51.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daly, N., Holmes, J., Newton, J. and Stubbe, M. (2004). Expletives as solidarity signals in FTAs on the factory floor. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(5), 945–64.Google Scholar
De Fina, A., Schiffrin, D. and Bamberg, M. (2006). Discourse and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.). (1992). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 453–76.Google Scholar
Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester, UK: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Fletcher, J. (2014). Social communities in a knowledge enabling organizational context: Interaction and relational engagement in a community of practice and a micro-community of knowledge. Discourse and Communication, 8(4), 351–69.Google Scholar
Franziskus, A. (2013). Getting by in a multilingual workplace: Language practices, ideologies and norms of cross-border workers in Luxembourg. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Franziskus, A., de Bres, J. and Gilles, P. (2013). ‘I learnt English – the wrong thing, eh’. Power, interests and language practices among cross-border workers in Luxembourg. In Gilles, P., Koff, H., Maganda, C. and Schulz, C., eds., Theorizing Borders through Analyses of Power Relationships. Brussels: Peter Lang, pp. 249–70.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Chichester, UK: John WileyGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. (2007). Social constructionism, postmodernism and feminist sociolinguistics. Gender and Language, 1(1), 51–65.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Marra, M. (2004). Leadership and managing conflict in meetings. Pragmatics, 14(4), 439–62.Google Scholar
Holmes, J., Marra, M. and Vine, B. (2011). Leadership, Discourse, and Ethnicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, J., Marra, M. and Vine, B. (2012). Politeness and impoliteness in New Zealand English workplace discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1063–76.Google Scholar
Holmes, J., Marra, M. and Vine, B. (2020). Contesting the culture order: Contrastive pragmatics in action. Contrastive Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Stubbe, M. ([2003] 2015). Power and Politeness in the Workplace. 2nd ed. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hui, S. Y. (2014). Analysing interpersonal relations in call-centre discourse. Unpublished PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua – Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 8(2–3), 223–48.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2006). Politeness in small shops in France. Journal of Politeness Research, 2(1), 79–103.Google Scholar
King, B. W. (2019a). Communities of Practice in Language Research: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
King, B. W. (2019b, December). Finding ideologies in talk about talk. Paper presented at the New Zealand Discourse Conference, Wellington.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Limburg, H. (eds.). (2012). Advice in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–33.Google Scholar
Lønsmann, D. (2011). English as a corporate language: Language choice and language ideologies in an international company in Denmark. Unpublished PhD thesis, Roskilde University.Google Scholar
Marra, M. (2012). Disagreeing without being disagreeable: Negotiating workplace communities as an outsider. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1580–90.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2011). The organization of concurrent courses of action in surgical demonstrations. In Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. and LeBaron, C., eds., Embodied Interaction, Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 207–26.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2018). The multimodal interactional organization of tasting: Practices of tasting cheese in gourmet shops. Discourse Studies, 20(6), 743–69.Google Scholar
Morrison, A. and Holmes, J. (2003). Eliciting refusals: A methodological challenge. Te Reo, 46, 47–66.Google Scholar
Mullany, L. (2007). Gendered Discourse in the Professional Workplace. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Murata, K. (2011). A contrastive study of the discourse of business meetings in New Zealand and Japan. Unpublished PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 335–58.Google Scholar
Prebble, J. (2009). A cost/benefit analysis of the Skilled Migrant programme: 2005–2008.Victoria University of Wellington Language in the Workplace Project Occasional Paper 9.Google Scholar
Riddiford, N. and Holmes, J. (2015). Assisting the development of sociopragmatic skills: Negotiating refusals at work. System, 48, 129–40.Google Scholar
Roberts, C., Davies, E. and Jupp, T. (1992). Language and Discrimination. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schnurr, S. and Chan, A. (2009). Politeness and leadership discourse in New Zealand and Hong Kong: A cross-cultural case study of workplace talk. Journal of Politeness Research, 5(2), 131–57.Google Scholar
Schnurr, S., Marra, M. and Holmes, J. (2007). Being (im)polite in New Zealand workplaces: Māori and Pākehā leaders. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 712–29.Google Scholar
Schnurr, S., Marra, M. and Holmes, J. (2008). Impoliteness as a means of contesting power relations in the workplace. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M., eds., Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 211–30.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories and cultural description. In Basso, K. H. and Selby, H. A., eds., Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 11–55.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication, 23(3–4), 193–229.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. London: Continuum, pp. 11–46.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. and Xing, J. (2003). Managing rapport in intercultural business interactions: A comparison of two Chinese–British welcome meetings. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 24(1), 33–46.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5: Women and Men at Work. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
Van de Mieroop, D. and Schnurr, S. (eds.). (2017). Identity Struggles: Evidence from Workplaces Around the World. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vine, B. (2004). Getting Things Done at Work: The Discourse of Power in Workplace Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vine, B. and Marra, M. (2017). The Wellington Language in the Workplace Project: Creating stability through flexibility. In Marra, M. and Warren, P., eds., Linguist at Work: Festschrift for Janet Holmes. Wellington: Victoria University Press, pp. 181–201.Google Scholar
Waldvogel, J. (2002). Some features of workplace emails. New Zealand English Journal, 16, 42–52.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In Schiefflin, B. B., Woolard, K. A. and Kroskrity, P. V., eds., Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–47.Google Scholar

References

Antonopoulou, E. (2001). Brief service encounters: Gender and politeness. In Bayraktaroğlu, A. and Sifianou, M., eds., Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 241–69.Google Scholar
Archer, D. and Jagodziński, P. (2015). Call centre interaction: A case of sanctioned face attack? Journal of Pragmatics, 76, 46–66.Google Scholar
Aston, G. (Ed.). (1988). Negotiating Service: Studies in the Discourse of Bookshop Encounters. Bologna: CLUEB.Google Scholar
Aston, G. (1995). In reference to the role of openings in service encounters. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 16, 89–112.Google Scholar
Bailey, B. (1997). Communication of respect in interethnic service encounters. Language in Society, 26, 327–56.Google Scholar
Bataller, R. (2015). ¡Enrique, échame un tintillo! A comparative study of service encounter requests in Valencia and Granada. In Fernández-Amaya, L. and Hernandez-Lopez, M., eds., Service Encounters and Cross-Cultural Communication. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, pp. 113–37.Google Scholar
Bataller, R. (2020). Corner-store interactions in Cartagena and Bucaramanga: A variational pragmatics study. In Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and Placencia, M. E., eds., Pragmatic Variation in Service Encounter Interactions across the Spanish-Speaking World. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 35–54.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2010). The Sociolinguistics of Socialization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bayyurt, Y. and Bayraktaroğlu, A. (2001). The use of pronouns and terms of address in Turkish service encounters. In Bayraktaroğlu, A. and Sifianou, M., eds., Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 209–40.Google Scholar
Bou-Franch, P. and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2020). Socioeconomic variation and conflict in Spanish retailer-consumer interactions on Facebook. In J. Félix-Brasdefer, C. and Placencia, M. E., eds., Pragmatic Variation in Service Encounter Interactions across the Spanish-Speaking World. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 189–206.Google Scholar
Budach, G., Roy, S. and Heller, M. (2003). Community and commodity in French Ontario. Language in Society, 32, 603–27.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (2000). Styling the worker: Gender and the commodification of language in the globalized service economy. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4, 323–47.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (2008). Talk from the top down. Language and Communication, 28, 143–55.Google Scholar
Dorai, S. and Webster, C. (2015). The role of nonverbal communication in service encounters. In Hernández López, M. and Fernández Amaya, L., eds., A Multidisciplinary Approach to Service Encounters. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, pp. 215–33.Google Scholar
Downey Bartlett, N. J. (2005). A double shot 2% mocha latte, please, with whip: Service encounters in two coffee shops and at a coffee cart. In Long, M. H., ed., Second Language Needs Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 305–43.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.). (1992). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dûchene, A. (2009). Marketing, management and performance: Multilingualism as commodity in a tourism call centre. Language Policy, 8, 27–50.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M.  (2005). ‘Yes, tell me please, what time is the midday flight from Athens arriving?’: Telephone service encounters and politeness. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2, 253–73.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2015). The Language of Service Encounters: A Pragmatic-Discursive Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2017). Service encounters. In Vine, B., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Language in the Workplace. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 162–74.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2021). Pragmatic variation across varieties of Spanish. In D. A. Koike & J. C. Félix-Brasdefer (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Pragmatics. Oxford & New York: Routledge. pp. 269–287.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and Placencia, M. E. (2020). Pragmatic Variation in Service Encounter Interactions across the Spanish-Speaking World. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and Yates, A. (2020). Regional pragmatic variation in small shops in Mexico City, Buenos Aires, and Seville, Spain. In Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and Placencia, M. E., eds., Pragmatic Variation in Service Encounter Interactions across the Spanish-Speaking World. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 15–34.Google Scholar
Fink, L. and Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2015). Pragmalinguistic and gender variation in U.S. café service encounters. In Beeching, K. and Woodfield, H., eds., Researching Sociopragmatic Variability: Perspectives from Variational, Interlanguage and Contrastive Pragmatics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 19–48.Google Scholar
Filliettaz, L. (2004). The multimodal negotiation of service encounters. In Le Vine, P. and Scollon, R., eds., Discourse and Technology: Multimodal Discourse Analysis. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 88–100.Google Scholar
Forey, G. and Lockwood, , J. (2007). “I’d love to put someone in jail for this”: An initial investigation of English in the business processing outsourcing (BPO) industry. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 308–26.Google Scholar
Friginal, E. (2009). Threats to the sustainability of the outsourced call center industry in the Philippines: Implications for language policy. Language Policy, 8, 51–68.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2015). Setting the linguistics research agenda for the e-service encounters genre: Natively digital versus digitized perspectives. In de la O Hernández-López, M. and Fernández-Amaya, L., eds., A Multidisciplinary Approach to Service Encounters. Boston: Brill, pp. 15–36.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., Fernández-Amaya, L. and Hernández-López, M. (2019). (eds.). Technology Mediated Service Encounters. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gavioli, L. (1995). Turn-initial and turn-final laughter: Two techniques for initiating remedy in English/Italian bookshop service encounters. Discourse Processes, 19, 369–84.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1996). Communality as a dimension of service relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5, 387–415.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Frame, C. D. (1989). Social distance within the service encounter: Does the consumer want to be your friend? Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 64–71.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Private Sphere: An Enquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Translated by Burger, Thomas. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1980). Text and context: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Sophia Linguistica, 6, 4–107.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. (1985). The structure of a text. In Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R., eds., Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 52–69.Google Scholar
Haakana, M. and Sorjonen, M. L. (2011). Invoking another context: Playfulness in buying lottery tickets at convenience stores. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1288–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, M. (2003). Globalization, the new economy, and the commodification of language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7, 473–92.Google Scholar
Hernández López, M. and Fernández Amaya, L. (eds.). (2015). A Multidisciplinary Approach to Service Encounters. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27, 291–334.Google Scholar
Herring, S. and Androutsopoulos, J. (2015). Computer-mediated discourse 2.0. In Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. E. and Schiffrin, Deborah, eds., The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 127–51.Google Scholar
Isosävi, J. and Lappalainen, H. (2015). First names in Starbucks: A clash of cultures? In Norrby, C. and Wide, C., eds., Address Practice as Social Action: European Perspectives. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 97–118.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2001). Je voudrais un p’tit bifteck: la politesse à la française en site commercial [I would like a small steak: French-style politeness in commercial sites]. Les Carnets du Cediscor, 7. http://cediscor.revues.org/307.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2004). Politeness in France: How to buy bread politely. In Hickey, L. and Stewart, M., eds., Politeness in Europe. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 29–44.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2006). Politeness in small shops in France. Journal of Politeness Research, 2, 79–103.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. and Traverso, V. (2008). Les interactions en site commercial: Invariants et variations [Interactions in Commercial Sites: Invariants and Variations]. Lyon: Ens Éditions.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (2005). Civility and its discontents: Or, getting in your face. In Lakoff, R. T. and Ide, S., eds., Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 23–43.Google Scholar
Lee, H. (2015). Does a server’s attentiveness matter? Understanding intercultural service encounters in restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 50, 134–44.Google Scholar
Lockwood, J., Forey, G. and Elias, N. (2009). Call centre communication: Measurement processes in non-English speaking contexts. In Belcher, D., ed., English for Specific Purposes in Theory and Practice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 143–65.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. (1998). The teaching of ‘politeness’ in the language classroom. In Vázquez Orta, I. and Guillén Galve, I., eds., Perspectivas Pragmáticas en Lingüística Aplicada. Anubar: Zaragoza, pp. 290–97.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. (2002). A contrastive study of conventional indirectness in Spanish: Evidence from Peninsular and Uruguayan Spanish. Pragmatics, 12 , 135–51.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. (2005). Complaint calls to a caregiver service company: The case of desahogo. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2, 481–513.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. (2006). Interactional closeness in service calls to Montevidean carer service company. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39, 7–39.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. (2008). Intra-cultural variation: Explanations in service calls to two Montevidean service providers. Journal of Politeness Research, 4, 1–29.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. (2010). A ella no le gusta que le digan María y a mí que me traten de tú: A window into Latin American diversity. Sociolinguistic Studies, 4, 413–42.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. (2011). Mediated Business Interactions: Intercultural Communication between Speakers of Spanish. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. (2019). Navigating commercial constraints in a Spanish service call. In Garcés Conejos Biltvich, P., Hernández López, M. and Amaya, L., eds., Mediated Service Encounters. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 121–44.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. and Bou-Franch, P. (2017). (Im)politeness in service encounters. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of (Im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 661–87.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. and Placencia, M. (2004). Displaying closeness and respectful distance in Montevidean and Quiteño service encounters. In Márquez Reiter, R. and Placencia, M. E., eds., Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 121–55.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. and Placencia, M. E. (2005). Spanish Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. and Stewart, M. (2008). Interactions en site commercial à Montevideo et à Édimbourg (Royaume Uni): “engagement” et “considération enver autri”. In Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. and Traverso, V., eds., Les interactions en site commercial: Invariants et variants. Paris: ENS Editions, pp. 277–303.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. and Martín Rojo, L. (eds.). (2010). Service encounters in multilingual and multicultural contexts. Special issue. Sociolinguistic Studies, 4.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R., Orthaber, S. and Kádár, D. (2015). Disattending customer dissatisfaction on Facebook: A case study of a Slovenian public transport company. In Christopher, E., ed., International Management and Intercultural Communication: A Collection of Case Studies. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave/Macmillan, pp. 108–26.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. and Orthaber, S. (2019) Exploring the moral compass: Denunciations in a Facebook carpool group. Internet Pragmatics, 1(2), 241–70.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. (2000). Mutually captive audiences: Small talk and the genre of close-contact service encounters. In Coupland, J., ed., Small Talk. Harlow, UK: Pearson, pp. 84–109.Google Scholar
Merino Hernández, L. M. (2020). The role of gender in Mexican e-service encounters. In Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and Placencia, M. E., eds., Pragmatic Variation in Service Encounter Interactions across the Spanish-Speaking World. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 115–29.Google Scholar
Merritt, M. (1976). On questions following questions in service encounters. Language in Society, 5, 315–57.Google Scholar
Michno, J. (2020). Gender variation in address form selection in corner store-interactions in a Nicaraguan community. In Félix-Brsadefer, J. C. and Placencia, M. E., eds., Pragmatic Variation in Service Encounter Interactions across the Spanish-Speaking World. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 77–98.Google Scholar
Mitchell, T. F. (1957). The language of buying and selling in Cyrenaica: A situational statement. Hesperis, 26, 31–71.Google Scholar
Murillo Medrano, J. (2020). Forms of address and gender in Costa Rican service encounters. In Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and Placencia, M. E., eds., Pragmatic Variation in Service Encounter Interactions across the Spanish-Speaking World. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 130–49.Google Scholar
Orthaber, S. and Márquez Reiter, R. (2016). When routine calls for information become interpersonally sensitive. Pragmatics and Society, 7, 638–63.Google Scholar
Padilla Cruz, M. (2020). Verbal humor and age in cafés and bars in Seville, Spain. In Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and Placencia, M. E., eds., Pragmatic Variation in Service Encounter Interactions across the Spanish-Speaking World. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 169–88.Google Scholar
Placencia, M. E. (1998). Pragmatic variation: Ecuadorian Spanish vs. Peninsular Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 71–106.Google Scholar
Placencia, M. E. (2005). Pragmatic variation in corner store interactions in Quito and Madrid. Hispania, 88(3), 583–98.Google Scholar
Placencia, M. E. (2008) Requests in corner shop transactions in Ecuadorian Andean and Coastal Spanish. In Schneider, K. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 307–32.Google Scholar
Placencia, M. E. (2015). Address forms and relational work in e-commerce: The case of service encounter interactions in MercadoLibre Ecuador. In de la O Hernández-López, M. and Fernández Amaya, L., eds., A Multidisciplinary Approach to Service Encounters. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, pp. 37–64.Google Scholar
Powell, H. and Placencia, M. E. (2020). Interpersonal work in service encounters in Mercado Libre Argentina: A comparison between buyer and vendor patterns across two market domains. In Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and Placencia, M. E., eds., Pragmatic Variation in Service Encounter Interactions across the Spanish-Speaking World. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 209–29.Google Scholar
Placencia, M. E. and Mancera Rueda, A. (2011). Vaya, ¡qué chungo! Rapport-building talk in service encounters: The case of bars in Seville at breakfast time. In Lorenzo-Dus, N., ed., Spanish at Work: Analyzing Institutional Discourse across the Spanish Speaking World, New York: Palgrave/Macmillan, pp. 192–207.Google Scholar
Ramírez Cruz, H. (2017). No manches, güey! Service encounters in a Hispanic American intercultural communication setting. Journal of Pragmatics, 108, 28–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowley, J. (2006). An analysis of the e-service literature: Towards a research agenda. Internet Research, 16, 339–59.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2020). Rethinking pragmatic variation: The case of service encountersfrom a modified variational pragmatics perspective. In Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and Placencia, M. E., eds., Pragmatic Variation in Service Encounter Interactions across the Spanish-Speaking World. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 251–64.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. and Barron, A. (eds.). (2008). Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. (2010). Variational pragmatics. In Fried, M., ed., Variation and Change: Pragmatic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 239–67.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. (2018). Methods and ethics of data collection. In Jucker, A. H., Schneider, K. P. and Bublitz, W., eds., Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 37–93.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. and Tzanne, A. (2018). The impact of globalization on brief service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 134, 163–72.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). A problematic Chinese business visit to Britain: Issues of face. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. London: Continuum, pp. 272–88.Google Scholar
Stommel, W. and te Molder, H. (2015). Counseling online and over the phone: When preclosing questions fail as a closing device. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48, 281–300.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. (2015). Coffee: Pragmalinguistic variation of request in Starbucks service encounters. In Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., ed., Current Issues in Pragmatic Variation. IU Working Papers 15. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/iulcwp/issue/view/1715.Google Scholar
Traverso, V. (2001). Syrian service encounters: A case study of shifting strategies within verbal exchange. Pragmatics, 11, 421–44.Google Scholar
Traverso, V. (2006). Aspects of polite behaviour in French and Syrian service encounters: A data-based comparative study. Journal of Politeness Research, 2, 105–22.Google Scholar
Traverso, V. (2007). Insisting: A goal-oriented or a chatting interactional practice? One aspect of Syrian service encounters. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 377–98.Google Scholar
Varcasia, C. (2013). Business and Service Telephone Conversations: An Investigation of British English, German and Italian Encounters. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Ventola, E. (1987). The Structure of Social Interaction: A Systemic Approach to the Semiotics of Service Encounters. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
Ventola, E. (2005). Revisiting service encounter genre – some reflections. Folia Linguistica, 39, 19–43.Google Scholar
Zahler, S. (2016). Pragmalinguistic variation in electronic personal ads from Mexico City and London. In Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., ed., Current Issues in Pragmatic Variation. IU Working Papers 15. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/iulcwp/issue/view/1715.Google Scholar

References

Adone, C. (2017). The role of pragmatic and majority argumentation in reports of European parliamentary committees of inquiry. In van Eemeren, F., ed., Prototypical Argumentative Patterns: Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 53–70.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, J. (2008). “You have the right to remain silent …” but only if you ask for it just so: The role of linguistic ideology in American police interrogation law. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 15(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Alston, W. P. (2000). Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Anscombre, J.-C. and Ducrot, O. (1983). L’Argumentation dans la langue. Brussels: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . (2007). Aristotle: On Rhetoric. 2nd ed. Edited by Kennedy, G. A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Atifi, H. and Marcoccia, M. (2015). Follow-ups and dialogue in online discussions on French politics: From internet forums to social TV. In Fetzer, A., Weizman, E. and Berlin, L. N., eds., The Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-Ups. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 109–40.Google Scholar
Atifi, H. and Marcoccia, M. (2017). The fabrication of ordinary people in French media discourse: when ordinary people are not only ordinary. Paper presented at the 15th IPRA conference, Panel on Constructing ordinariness across media genres, organized by E. Weizman and A. Fetzer, Belfast, June.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. ([1962] 1975). How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (2000). Quantification, qualification and context: A reply to Stanley and Szabó. Mind and Language, 15, 262–83.Google Scholar
Brandom, R. (1994). Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bull, P. and Wells, P. (2012). Adversarial discourse in Prime Minister’s questions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31(1), 30–48.Google Scholar
Charrow, R. P. and Charrow, V. R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79(7), 1306–74.Google Scholar
Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, P., Morgan, J. and Pollack, M. E. (eds.). (1991). Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Danet, B. (1980). Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review, 14, 445–564.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. and Wróblewski, J. (1991). The rational law-maker and the pragmatics of legal interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 15, 421–44.Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1984). Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, S., Eades, D. and Ainsworth, J. (eds.). (2016). Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elliott, D. C. (1989). Constitutions in a Modern Setting – the Language of the Practice of Law. A paper presented at Lawasia Conference, Hong Kong, September. www.davidelliott.ca/papers/lawasia.htm#section9.Google Scholar
Endicott, T. A. O. (2000). Vagueness in Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2006). Language and Globalization. Oxon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2000). Negotiating validity claims in political interviews. Text, 20(4), 1–46.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2002). Communicative intentions in context. In Fetzer, A. and Meierkord, C., eds., Rethinking Sequentiality: Linguistics Meets Conversational Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 37–69.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2004). Recontextualizing Context: Grammaticality Meets Appropriateness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2013). The multilayered and multifaceted nature of political discourse. In Fetzer, A., ed., The Pragmatics of Political Discourse: Explorations across Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2015). ‘When you came into office you said that your government would be different’: Forms and functions of quotations in mediated political discourse. In Fetzer, A., Weizman, E. and Berlin, L. N., eds., The Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-Ups. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 245–73.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2017). The dynamics of discourse: Quantity meets quality. In Cap, P. and Dynel, M., eds., Implicitness: From Lexis to Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 235–57.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2018a). 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. (2018b). ‘Our Chief Political Editor reads between the lines of the Chancellor’s Budget speech’: The strategic exploitation of conversational implicature in mediated political discourse. Internet Pragmatics, 1(1), 29–54.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. and Weizman, E. (2006). Political discourse as mediated and public discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(2), 143–53.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. and Bull, P. (2008). ‘Well, I answer it by simply inviting you to look at the evidence’: The strategic use of pronouns in political interviews. Journal of Language and Politics, 7(2), 271–89.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. and Weizman, E. (2015). Introduction. In Weizman, E. and Fetzer, A., eds., Follow-Ups in Political Discourse: Explorations across Discourse Domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. vii–xvii.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. and Weizman, E. (2018). “What I would say to John and everyone like John is …”: The construction of ordinariness through quotations in mediated political discourse (with E. Weizman). Discourse and Society, 29(5), 1–19.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. and Bull, P. (2019). Quoting ordinary people in Prime Minister’s Questions. In Fetzer, A. and Weizman, E., eds., The Construction of Ordinariness across Media Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 73-101.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1994). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Garssen, B. (2017). The role of pragmatic problem-solving argumentation in plenary debate in the European Parliament. In van Eemeren, F., ed., Prototypical Argumentative Patterns: Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 31–51.Google Scholar
Gauker, C. (1994). Thinking Out Loud. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gauker, C. (2007). On the alleged priority of thought over language. In Tsohatzidis, S. L., ed., John Searle’s Philosophy of Language: Force, Meaning, and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 125–42.Google Scholar
Gauker, C. (2008). Zero tolerance for pragmatics. Synthese, 165, 359–71.Google Scholar
Gauker, C. (2011). Words and Images: An Essay on the Origin of Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.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. 229–52.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
Habermas, J. (1987). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1948–9). The ascription of responsibility and rights. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (New Series), 49, 171–94.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. ([1961] 1994). The Concept of Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hutton, C. (2009). Language, Meaning and the Law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Joos, M. (1961). The Five Clocks: A Linguistic Excursion into the Five Styles of English Usage. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Korta, K. and Perry, J. (2007). How to say things with words. In Tsohatzidis, S. L., ed., John Searle’s Philosophy of Language: Force, Meaning, and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 169–89.Google Scholar
Korta, K. and Perry, J. (2011). Critical Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kukla, R. and Lance, M. (2009). ‘Yo!’ and ‘Lo!’: The Pragmatic Topography of the Space of Reasons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kurzon, D. (1997). ‘Legal language’: varieties, genres, registers, discourses. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 119–39.Google Scholar
Langton, R. (1993). Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 22, 305–30.Google Scholar
Larsson, S. (2011). Metaphors and Norms: Understanding Copyright Law in a Digital Society. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Lauerbach, G. and Fetzer, A. (2007). Political discourse in the media: Cross-cultural perspectives. In Fetzer, A. and Lauerbach, G. E., eds., Political Discourse in the Media: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–28.Google Scholar
Livingstone, S. and Lunt, P. (1994). Talk on Television: Audience Participation and Public Talk. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Livnat, Z. (2012). Follow-ups in a loose argumentative context: The pragmatic effectiveness of figurative analogy. In Fetzer, A., Weizman, E. and Reber, E., eds., Proceedings of the ESF Strategic Workshop on Follow-Ups across Discourse Domains: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions, Würzburg (Germany), 31 May–2 June 2012. Würzburg: Universität Würzburg, pp. 165–77. http://opus.bibliothek.uni-wuerzburg.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/6116.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, C. (1989). Towards a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, C. (1991). Pornography as defamation and discrimination. Boston University Law Review, 71, 793–815.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, C. (1993). Only Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. G. (1984). Language, Thought and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. G. (2004). Varieties of Meaning. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. G. (2005). Language: A Biological Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neale, S. (2007). On location. In O’Rourke, M. and Washington, C., eds., Situating Semantics: Essays on the Philosophy of John Perry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 251–393.Google Scholar
Reinach, A. ([1913]1983). The a priori foundations of civil law. Translated by Crosby, John. Aletheia, 3, 1–142.Google Scholar
Scannell, P. (1998). Media-language-world. In Bell, A. and Garrett, P., eds., Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 252–67.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1983). Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1991). Conversation revisited. In Searle, J. R., Parret, H. and Verschueren, J., eds., (On) Searle on Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 137–47.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1996). Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language, 25(4), 359–93.Google Scholar
Sugarman, D. and Hart, H. L. A. (2005). Hart interviewed: H.L.A. Hart in conversation with David Sugarman (interview 1988). Journal of Law and Society, 32, 267–93.Google Scholar
Tiersma, P. M. and Solan, L. M. (2004). Cops and robbers: Selective literalism in American criminal law. Law and Society Review, 38(2), 229–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. (ed.). (2017). Prototypical Argumentative Patterns: Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. (2017). Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. In van Eemeren, F., ed., Prototypical Argumentative Patterns: Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 7–29.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. and Grootendorst, R. (1995). Argumentation theory. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J.-O. and Blommaert, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55–61.Google Scholar
Walker, A. (1985). The two faces of silence: The effect of witness hesitancy on lawyers’ impressions. In Tannen, D. and Saville-Troike, M., eds., Perspectives on Silence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 55–75.Google Scholar
Weizman, E. and Fetzer, A. (2018). Constructing ordinariness in online journals: A corpus-based study in the Israeli context. Israel Studies in Language and Society, 11(1), 22–48.Google Scholar
Witczak-Plisiecka, I. (2007). Language, Law and Speech Acts: Pragmatic Meaning in English Legal Texts. Łódź: WSSM.Google Scholar
Witczak-Plisiecka, I. (2009a). A linguistic-pragmatic note on legal indeterminacy in legal language. Linguistica Copernicana, 1, 231–43.Google Scholar
Witczak-Plisiecka, I. (2009b). A note on legal discourse semantics and J.L. Austin’s theory of speech acts. In Dynel, M., ed., Advances in Discourse Approaches. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 92–111.Google Scholar
Witczak-Plisiecka, I. (2013a). From Speech Acts to Speech Actions. Łódź: Łódź University Press.Google Scholar
Witczak-Plisiecka, I. (2013b). Speech action in legal contexts. In Sbisa, M. and Turner, K., eds., Pragmatics of Speech Actions, Handbook of Pragmatics Part 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 613–58.Google Scholar
Wojtczak, S., Witczak-Plisiecka, I. and Augustyn, R. (2017). Metafory konceptualne jako narzędzia rozumowania i poznania prawniczego [Conceptual metaphors as instruments of legal cognition and reasoning]. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Edited by Ogden, C. K. and Paul, K.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. ([1953] 1958). Philosophical Investigations. 2nd rev. ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wróblewski, J. (1985). Legal language and legal interpretation. Law and Philosophy, 4, 239–55.Google Scholar

References

Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25, 7–36.Google Scholar
Austin, J. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A Course Book on Translation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2011). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, R. and Dressler, W. (1981). Einführung in die Textlinguistik. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Becher, V., House, J. and Kranich, S. (2009). Convergence and divergence of communicative norms through language norms in translation. In K. Braunmüller, and J. House, , eds., Convergence and Divergence in Language Contact Situations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 125–52.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena, Gemany: Fischer.Google Scholar
Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 214–74.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W. (1981). Spoken Discourse: A Model for Analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ehlich, K. (1984). Zum Textbegriff. In A. Rothkegel, and B. Sandig, , eds., Text-Textsorten Semantik. Hamburg, Germany: Buske, pp. 9–25.Google Scholar
Federov, A. (1958). Introduction to the Theory of Translation. 2d ed. (in Russian). Moscow: Isdatel’stvo literartury na inostrannikh yazykakh.Google Scholar
Forgas, J. (1985). Language and Social Situations. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, and J. Morgan, , eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1992). Contextualisation and understanding. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 229–52.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1989). Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halverson, S. (2014). Reorienting translation studies: Cognitive approaches and the centrality of the translator. In J. House, , ed., Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 116–39.Google Scholar
Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
House, J. (1977). A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.Google Scholar
House, J. (1997). Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.Google Scholar
House, J. (2003). English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7, 556–79.Google Scholar
House, J. (2006). Communicative styles in English and German. European Journal of English Studies, 10, 249–67.Google Scholar
House, J. (2010). Discourse and dominance: Global English, language contact and language change. In A. Duszak, , J. House, and L. Kumiega, , eds., Globalization, Discourse, Media. Warsaw: University of Warsaw Press, pp. 61–94.Google Scholar
House, J. (2015). Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
House, J. (2016a). Translation as Communication across Language and Cultures. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
House, J. (2016b). Towards a new linguistic-cognitive orientation in translation studies. In M. Ehrensberger-Dow, S. Göpferich, and O’Brien, S., eds., Interdisciplinarity in Translation and Interpreting Process Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 49–63.Google Scholar
House, J. (2017). Global English, discourse and translation: Linking constructions in English and German popular science texts. In Munday, J. and Zhang, M., eds., Discourse Analysis in Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 47–62.Google Scholar
Jäger, S. (1975). Translation und Translationslinguistik. Halle: VEB Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1959). On linguistic aspects of translation. In Brower, R., ed., On Translation. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 232–9.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, T., ed., Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 350–77.Google Scholar
Kranich, S., House, J. and Becher, V. (2012). Changing conventions in English and German translations of popular science texts. In Braunmüller, K. and Gabriel, C., eds., Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 315–35.Google Scholar
Kruger, A., Wallmach, K. and Mundy, J. (2011). Corpus-Based Translation Studies: Research and Applications. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. (1935). Coral Gardens and Their Magic (II). London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Nida, E. (1964). Toward a Science of Translation. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2004). A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1972). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Reiss, K. (1971). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik. Munich, Germany: Hueber.Google Scholar
Schleiermacher, F. (1813). Über die verschiedenen Methoden des Übersetzens. Reprinted in Störig, H.-J., eds., Das Problem des Übersetzens. Darmstadt, Germany: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, pp. 38–70.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In Cole, P., ed., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9. New York: Academic Press, pp. 315–22.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1999). Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steiner, E. (2004). Exploring Texts: Properties, Variants, Evaluations. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. (2004). Text, Context, Pretext. Oxford: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. ([1958] 1967). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zanettin, F. (2014). Corpora in translation. In House, J., ed., Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 178–99.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×