Introducing Pragmatics in Use

Introducing Pragmatics in Use is a lively and accessible introduction to pragmatics

which both covers theory and applies it to real spoken and written data. This textbook
systematically draws upon a number of different language corpora and the corresponding
software applications. Its primary focus is the application of a corpus methodology in
order to examine core component areas such as deixis, politeness, speech acts, language
variation and register. The main goal of the book is to contextualise pragmatics in the study
of language through the analysis of different language contexts provided by spoken and
written corpora.
Substantially revised and updated, this second edition covers a wider range of topics,
corpora and software packages. It consistently demonstrates the benefits of innovative
analytical synergies and extends this to how corpus pragmatics can be further blended with,
for example, conversation analysis or variational pragmatics. The second edition also offers
a new chapter specifically dedicated to corpus pragmatics which proposes a framework
for both form-to-function and function-to-form approaches. The book also addresses the –
sometimes thorny – area of the integration of the teaching of pragmatics into the language
classroom. All chapters in the second edition include a number of cohesive, step-by-step
tasks that can be done in small groups in class or used as self-study resources.
A wide range of illustrative language samples drawn from a number of English-
language corpora, coupled with instructive tasks and annotated further reading sections,
make this an ideal textbook for advanced undergraduate or postgraduate students of
pragmatics, discourse analysis and corpus linguistics within applied languages/linguistics
or TESOL programmes.

Anne O’Keeffe is Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language

and Literature, Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, Ireland.

Brian Clancy is Lecturer in Academic Writing and Research Methods, Academic Learning
Centre, and Lecturer in Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language and Literature,
Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, Ireland.

Svenja Adolphs is Professor of English Language and Linguistics and Head of School at
the School of English, University of Nottingham, UK.
Introducing
Pragmatics in Use
Second Edition

ANNE O’KEEFFE
BRIAN CLANCY
SVENJA ADOLPHS
Second edition published 2020
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2020 Anne O’Keeffe, Brian Clancy, Svenja Adolphs
The right of Anne O’Keeffe, Brian Clancy, Svenja Adolphs to be identified
as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with
sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
First edition published by Routledge 2011
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book
ISBN: 978-1-138-48199-2 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-138-48200-5 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-0-429-34295-0 (ebk)
Typeset in Akzidenz Grotesk
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Visit the eResources: www.routledge.com/9781138482005
Contents

List of figures viii

List of tables xi
Acknowledgements xiv

Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 What is pragmatics? 1
1.2 Ways of studying pragmatics 2
1.3 The empirical turn within pragmatics 3
1.4 The main functions of software tools used in corpus
pragmatics 5
1.5 The structure of this book 17
1.6 Further reading 19

Chapter 2 Researching pragmatics 21

2.1 Pragmatics research: from intuitive to empirical approaches 21
2.2 Methods for eliciting language data 26
2.3 Methods for recording language data 34
2.4 Conclusion 44
2.5 Further reading 45

Chapter 3 Corpus pragmatics 47

3.1 Introduction 47
3.2 Key considerations of corpus pragmatics research 48
3.3 Form-to-function research in corpus pragmatics 51
3.4 Function-to-form research using corpora 56
3.5 Conclusion 67
3.6 Further reading 68

Chapter 4 Reference 69
4.1 Introduction 69
4.2 Deixis 72
vi Contents

4.3 The deictic centre 76

4.4 Basic categories of deixis 78
4.5 Reference in use: ‘that’ and speaker attitudes 91
4.6 Conclusion 95
4.7 Further reading 96

Chapter 5 Politeness 98
5.1 Linguistic politeness 98
5.2 The face-saving approach to politeness 103
5.3 Impoliteness 114
5.4 Discursive politeness 119
5.5 Conclusion 122
5.6 Further reading 123

Chapter 6 Speech acts 124

6.1 Introduction 124
6.2 Speech Act Theory 125
6.3 Identifying and analysing speech acts in a corpus 135
6.4 What is a speech act context? 138
6.5 Speech act classification in discourse analysis 140
6.6 Conclusion 143
6.7 Further reading 143

Chapter 7 Pragmatics and language variation 145

7.1 Pragmatics and language variation 145
7.2 Response tokens and variation 147
7.3 Pragmatic markers and variation 154
7.4 Vague language and variation 159
7.5 Speech acts and variation 165
7.6 Further reading 170

Chapter 8 Pragmatics and variation at the level of register 173

8.1 Pragmatics and variation at the level of register 173
8.2 Comparability at the level of turns 174
8.3 Other methods of comparing registers using a corpus 184
8.4 Conclusion 193
8.5 Further reading 194

Chapter 9 Pragmatics and language teaching 196

9.1 Introduction 196
9.2 Implicit versus explicit pragmatic instruction 197
9.3 Technology-based opportunities for pragmatic learning 200
9.4 Developing classroom materials 210
 Contents vii

9.5 Conclusion 225

9.6 Further reading 227

Appendix 229
References 233
Index 255
 
Figures

  1.1 A sample of concordance for have in the TED_en corpus sorted 1R

(using Sketch Engine) 10
  1.2 Top ten collocates of have in the TED_en corpus (using Sketch Engine),
examining all word candidates three to the left and three to the right of we 11
  1.3 Concordance sample of we + have as the node (sorted 1R) 12
  1.4 Top ten most frequent words to the right of we + have in the TED_en
corpus (using Sketch Engine) 13
  2.1 Language inside as intuitive knowledge and language outside as
empirical data 22
  2.2 Researcher interference versus research control (adapted from
Jucker, 2018: 23) 23
  2.3 An example of a freer DCT (adapted from Beebe and Zhang
Waring, 2004: 245) 27
  2.4 Scenarios from DCT presented to American and Mandarin students in
Liang and Han (2005) 29
  2.5 A roleplay prompt 31
  2.6 Example of broad transcription (and extract from a political science
lecture from the LIBEL corpus) 38
  2.7 Example of narrow transcription from the Hong Kong Corpus of
Spoken English (HKCSE) (Cheng and Warren, 2007) 39
  2.8 Web interface for BNCweb: Browse a File Function (search for file
KCT line 7746) 40
  2.9 Transcript of file KCT 7752 in BNCweb, marked up for <pauses>,
<unclear> segments and overlapping talk <-|-> 40
2.10 Detailed transcription provided by Rühlemann (2019: 94) 41
2.11 Sample interface from ELAN where image, sound and multi-modal
transcript are aligned in tiers (ELAN How-to Guide, 2017: 15) 42
2.12 Data extract from a cookery instruction session from CLAS 43
2.13 Screenshot of a search for directives marked with the tag <Dir> in
CLAS using AntConc software (sorted 1R) 44
  3.1 Form-to-function and function-to-form approaches in corpus pragmatics 48
  3.2 Corpus data versus DCT elicited data across form and context
(O’Keeffe, 2018: 593) 51
 Figures ix

  3.3 20 concordance lines of the node word sorry in the BNC2014,

using #LancsBox (unsorted) 52
  3.4 20 concordance lines of the node word so in the BNC2014,
using #LancsBox (unsorted) 54
  3.5 The four main approaches to form-to-function analysis using CL
(based on Ädel and Reppen, 2008: 2–3) 55
  3.6 An inventory of function-to-form approaches (adapted from O’Keeffe,
2018: 598–599) 57
  3.7 An example of gratitude clustering across turns in the BNC2014
(using #LancsBox) 62
  3.8 Collocate search settings for oops in the spoken component of COCA 65
  4.1 Concordance lines for that bloke in the BNC Baby 92
  4.2 Concordance lines for that fella in LCIE 94
  5.1 Brown and Levinson’s (1987) strategies for performing FTAs 104
  5.2 The semantic categorisation of in-group terms of address (adapted
from Leech, 1999) 107
  5.3 Distribution of hedges in LCIE (normalised per million words)
(Farr et al., 2004) 113
  6.1 20 randomly generated concordance lines for suggest in the BASE
(sorted 1L) 126
  6.2 Felicity conditions for requests (adapted from Levinson, 1983: 240) 128
  6.3 Felicity conditions for promises 128
  6.4 20 concordances lines for Can you…? in LCIE (sorted 1L) 131
  6.5 20 concordance lines for Could you…? in LCIE (sorted 1L) 131
  6.6 15 randomly chosen concordance lines for why don’t you…? in MICASE 137
  6.7 15 random concordance lines for why don’t we…? in MICASE 137
  7.1 20 random concordance lines for um in the Spoken BNC2014 151
  7.2 20 random concordance lines for well in the Spoken BNC2014 153
  7.3 Frequency of use of thanks, thank you and cheers in American English
1800–2008 166
  7.4 Frequency of use of thanks, thank you and cheers in British English
1800–2008 166
  8.1 Sample of concordance lines for <$1> as search item from LCIE (sorted 1R) 183
  8.2 Concordance extracts of sort in the NHS Direct corpus (unsorted) 185
  8.3 Sample concordance lines for maybe + we in C-MELT (unsorted) 188
  8.4 Extract from concordance lines for <$E> sound of till <\$E> in shop
recordings from LCIE (sorted 1R) 192
  8.5 Examples of concordance lines of <$E> inhales <\$E> (unsorted) 193
  9.1 Role card for Alex 198
  9.2 Two examples of high-frequency imperatives in the MICUSP 203
  9.3 Frequencies per 10,000 words of note in the MICUSP. The results for
Physics, Philosophy, Mechanical Engineering, Economics and Linguistics
are highlighted, as these were used in Neiderhiser et al. (2016) 203
  9.4 Examples of elicited responses to a request task based on booking a
study room in a university context (SPACE corpus) (taken from Jones
et al., 2018: 145) 208
x Figures

  9.5 An example of a B2 (Upper-Intermediate) level resource based on findings

from research into the Trinity Lancaster Corpus (Gablasova et al., 2019) 209
  9.6 Frequency results for approximately charted across genre and time
in COCA 215
  9.7 COCA interface search settings to explore approximately in ACADEMIC data 215
  9.8 Profile of approximately in ACADEMIC data across disciplines 216
  9.9 Frequency results for may and should across all disciplines in MICUSP 218
9.10 Extract from Beard (2008) 219
9.11 The first 20 results from the Business Letters Corpus search for would you 221
9.12 BNCweb query interface setting for search of That’s 225
Tables

  1.1 A range of contextual variables that aid understanding language in use

(adapted from Rühlemann, 2019: 6–7) 2
  1.2 A broad summary of the main approaches to gathering and analysing data
in pragmatics research 4
  1.3 Top 20 most frequent words in the enTenTen15 corpus, The British
National Corpus 1994 and the TED_en corpus 6
  1.4 Ten most frequent two-word, three-word and four-word units in LCIE 6
  1.5 Pragmatically specialised functions of MWUs based on O’Keeffe
et al. (2007) 8
  1.6 A list of the most frequent verbs that follow we + have + to in the
TED_en corpus with examples 14
  1.7 KEYWORD LIST 1: All of the keywords based on comparison of the
Bashir–Diana Panorama interview with Spoken Media Corpus (arranged
vertically in the grids in order of ‘keyness’) 16
  1.8 KEYWORD LIST 2: A sample of the 92 keywords based on comparison
of the Bashir–Diana Panorama interview with Spoken Academic Corpus
(arranged vertically in the grids in order of ‘keyness’) 16
  2.1 Terminological differences relating to roleplays (based on McDonough,
1986; Trosborg, 1995; Félix-Brasdefer, 2018) 31
  2.2 Corpus design matrix for study of pragmatic markers 37
  2.3 Typical codes used in a broad transcription of spoken corpora 39
  3.1 Comparing form-to-function and function-to-form analyses routes to
examine a research question 49
  3.2 Comparing Schauer and Adolphs’ (2006) DCT results with two spoken
corpora 61
  4.1 Top 20 most frequent words in LCIE 70
  4.2 Classification of referential items according to person, place or time
reference 72
  4.3 Frequency counts for the occurrences of we in COCA 80
  4.4 Comparison of frequency of occurrence of yesterday, today and tomorrow
with the lexicalised names for days of the week in LCIE (normalised per
million words) 83
xii Tables

  4.5 Frequency of occurrence of nouns (in alphabetical order) 1R of that in the

BNC Baby and LCIE 92
  4.6 Top 20 frequency results for that + noun (that _nn*) 95
  5.1 Frequency counts per million words for the occurrence of please in Spoken
BNC2014 and ICE-Ireland 100
  5.2 15 strategies which Brown and Levinson list in order to avoid threatening
positive face 106
  5.3 Ten strategies which Brown and Levinson list in order to avoid threatening
negative face 110
  5.4 Culpeper’s (1996) impoliteness strategies 115
  5.5 Negative vocatives that can be used in insults 119
  5.6 Frequency counts for thank* in service encounters in LCIE 122
  6.1 Distribution of speech acts in three speech situations in SPICE-Ireland
(normalised per 10,000 words) 129
  6.2 Frequency counts for why don’t you…? versus why don’t we…? in MICASE 136
  6.3 Initiating acts (Tsui, 1994) 141
  6.4 Requestives (Tsui, 1994: 104) 142
  7.1 Levels of variation (Schneider and Barron, 2008: 20–21) 145
  7.2 Frequency results for response tokens candidates in OANC (face-to-face)
versus OANC (switchboard) corpora (normalised per million words) 149
  7.3 Occurrences of um and well at turn-initial position in the OANC sub-corpora
based on 100-item downsample for each 151
  7.4 The turn-taking function of um and well in the OANC spoken sub-corpora
based on 100-item downsample for each 152
  7.5 Most frequent two-, three- and four-word clusters in BAWE 155
  7.6 The most frequent two-, three- and four-word clusters in LCIE 156
  7.7 The ten most frequent two-, three- and four-word chunks in BASE 157
  7.8 Comparative frequencies of selected adjunctive VCMs in the LINT and
BASE corpora (normalised per million words) 161
  7.9 Frequency counts for the item* that type of thing in COCA 162
7.10 Comparative frequencies of selected disjunctive VCMs in the LINT and
BASE corpora (normalised per million words) 163
7.11 Frequency counts for the item or whatever in COCA 164
7.12 Frequencies of thank, thanks and cheers in the Spoken BNC1994 versus
the Spoken BNC2014 (normalised per million words) 167
7.13 Top ten collocates for thank in the Spoken BNC2014 167
7.14 Top ten collocates for thanks in the Spoken BNC2014 168
7.15 Top ten collocates for cheers in the Spoken BNC2014 169
  8.1 Identifying characteristics of situational variation (based on Biber et al.,
1999: 15-17) 174
  8.2 Comparison of the top 20 most frequent words in the NHS Direct corpus
and the Spoken BNC1994 181
  8.3 Comparison of top 20 most frequent turn initial items in C-MELT and LINT 183
  8.4 Keywords of NHS Direct corpus with LCIE as reference corpus 185
  8.5 Keywords of C-MELT with LCIE as reference corpus 186
 Tables xiii

  8.6 Keywords, minus content items, of C-MELT with LCIE as a reference

corpus 187
  8.7 The ten most frequent three-word units in Sherlock Holmes corpus and
Shakespeare corpus 189
  8.8 The ten most frequent four-word units in the Jane Austen corpus 191
  9.1 The most frequent imperative verbs in the MICUSP across the disciplines
of physics, philosophy, economics, mechanical engineering and linguistics,
in descending order (Neiderhiser et al., 2016) 202
  9.2 Sample of A1 Beginners and A2 Elementary entries for future simple
relating to pragmatic competence taken from the English Grammar Profile
(O’Keeffe and Mark, 2017) 207
  9.3 A sample of entries from the English Grammar Profile (EGP), illustrating the
use of the affirmative form of the past simple, at A1, and tracking some of
the pragmatic competence developments at B1 and B2 level 208
  9.4 Formulaic address in different speaking and writing contexts 211
  9.5 Ways in which we make what we say less direct (marked in bold) (based
broadly on Carter and McCarthy, 2006) 214
  9.6 A summary of hedging forms (based broadly on Carter and McCarthy,
2006) 217
  9.7 Examples of the core functions of discourse markers in speaking 222
Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the support and encouragement we received from Routledge in

bringing the second edition of this book to fruition. In particular, we thank Louisa Semlyen
(Senior Publisher) and our Editorial Assistant, Eleni Steck. We are also grateful to Hannah
Rowe for her assistance at the initial stages of the project. We would also like to acknowl-
edge the insightful blind reviews we received on how the first edition might be improved
upon. One of the many helpful suggestions that came out of these reports was to add tasks,
and this has become a defining feature of the second edition. Thanks also to the following
friends and colleagues who have piloted tasks, given us feedback and advice on various
chapters or have replied to emails seeking screenshots, permission to use data or resource
screenshots, or who have chatted with us about ideas within this book: Cristina Becker
Lopes Perna, Dana Gablasova, Geraldine Mark, Mike McCarthy, Tony McEnery, Pascual
Pérez-Paredes, Ute Römer, Giovani Santos, Ana Terrazas-Calero, Elaine Vaughan, Martin
Weisser, and the students on the Discourse and Pragmatics module of the MA in Applied
Linguistics at Mary Immaculate College. Needless to say, the weaknesses of this book are
ours rather than theirs!
This book contains a lot of real data, as well as published results, from existing corpora,
and we wish to acknowledge these sources: the British Academic Spoken English Cor-
pus (BASE); the British Academic Written English Corpus (BAWE); the British National
Corpus (BNC); the BNCweb; the BNC Baby; the Spoken BNC2014; the Business Letter
Corpus; the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA); the Corpus of Historical
American English (COHA); the English Web Corpus (enTenTen); the Hong Kong Corpus of
Spoken English (HKCSE); the International Corpus of English: Ireland component (ICE-Ire-
land); the Limerick Corpus of Irish English (LCIE); the Limerick Corpus of Intimate Talk (LINT);
the Limerick and Belfast Corpus of Academic Spoken English (LIBEL); the Cambridge and
Nottingham Corpus of Discourse in English (CANCODE); the Cambridge Limerick and
Shannon corpus (CLAS); the Corpus of Meetings of English Language Teachers (C-MELT)
(very kindly lent to us by Elaine Vaughan); the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken Eng-
lish (MICASE); the Michigan Corpus of Upper Level Student Papers (MICUSP); the Not-
tingham Multi-Modal Corpus (NMMC) (funded by the UK Economic and Social Research
Council (ESRC), grant numbers RES-149-25-0035 and RES-149-25-1067); the Notting-
ham Health Communication Corpus (NHS Direct component); the Open American National
Corpus (OANC); the Speech Act Corpus of English (SPACE); SPICE-Ireland, the Santa
Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English (SBCSAE), and, finally, the TED_en corpus.
 Acknowledgements xv

Throughout the book, we draw upon screenshots of the main corpus tools. We
acknowledge kind permission to reproduce these: AntConc; ELAN; #LancsBox; Sketch
Engine and WordSmith Tools (Lexical Analysis Software Ltd) and web-based search
interfaces for the Spoken BNC2014; the BNCWeb; Business Letters Corpus; Corpus of
Contemporary American English (COCA); Google Ngram Viewer; the Michigan Corpus of
Academic Spoken English (MICASE) and the Michigan Corpus of Upper Level Student
Papers (MUCUSP).
We acknowledge the research output drawn from the English Grammar Profile online
resource (Cambridge University Press), which includes examples from the Cambridge
Learner Corpus. We also reproduce, with kind permission, a screenshot sample from
resources that have been developed using the Trinity Lancaster Corpus (Centre for Corpus
Approaches to Social Science, Lancaster University/Trinity College London). Every effort
has been made to contact copyright holders. If any have been inadvertently overlooked the
publishers will be pleased to make the necessary arrangement at the first opportunity.
Although he did not live to see this second edition, we will always be grateful to the late
Ron Carter for his lasting inspiration. And to our partners Ger, Elaine and Nick, respectively,
we say thank you for your patience, support and love, as always.
CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1  WHAT IS PRAGMATICS?

Pragmatics is seen as a relatively young sub-field of linguistics and this is underscored

when we see that the Journal of Pragmatics and Pragmatics were established in 1977
and 1991, respectively, and the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), was founded
in 1985. However, the lineage of pragmatic thought within linguistics and philosophy
is much older. In order to define the span of what pragmatics has become, it is best to
try to unravel the threads of its emergence. This route leads to different definitions but
the process of arriving at an understanding of this definitional divergence is important
in itself.
Early foundational work which is centrally associated with pragmatics came from
philosophers of language rather than from linguists (e.g. Morris, Austin, Grice and
Searle). Importantly, pragmatics evolved out of a desire to better understand how we
make meaning when we use language and a refusal to accept that it can be explained
adequately through form and meaning alone. Also central to pragmatics is the quest to
understand language as performance rather than as an internal language competence
of the native speaker-hearer. Although early work was solely introspective (involving
reflection and thought) rather than empirical, it still focused on the conditions of use and
performance.
A perusal of the history of pragmatics shows that two different approaches or schools
of thought began to emerge early on, namely the Anglo-American tradition and the Con-
tinental European tradition (see Jucker (2012) for an overview). The former looks at lan-
guage in more micro-detail, whereas the latter takes a more macro-view of language and
its social contexts. The Anglo-American school of thought treats pragmatics as one of the
core components within linguistics, along with semantics, syntax, morphology and pho-
nology. Within this component view, pragmatics is concerned with the study of presup-
positions, deixis, implicatures and speech acts. This focus is sometimes referred to as
micropragmatics (Mey, 2001). This contrasts with the more macropragmatic position of
Continental European pragmatics which takes a broader understanding of language in
use, giving a different perspective on human communication (Mey, 2001). Continental
European pragmatics is thus sometimes referred to as the perspective view and deals
with a more extensive remit, including the social and cultural dimensions and conditions of
language in use. The differing schools of thought and resultant perspectives, approaches
2 Introduction

and methods within pragmatics is not problematic. If anything, the vibrant scholarship from
both a micro- and a macro-perspective on the nature, conditions and variables of language
use adds to the breadth and depth of the field as a whole. Because this book involves look-
ing at naturally occurring language use, especially through corpora, there is often cross-
over between micropragmatic items such as deixis or speech acts and how they manifest
at a macro-level across social variables and conditions. While this book does not involve
introspective approaches to research, it benefits greatly from the scholarship in this area
in relation to core areas of pragmatics. Therefore, in defining pragmatics, we embrace the
richness across both component and perspective positions. For us, the best definition of
pragmatics remains a broad one which we cited in the first edition of this book, namely
that of Fasold (1990: 119), who says that it is ‘the study of the use of context to make
inferences about meaning’, where inferences refer to the deductions we make based on
available evidence. In the following section we explore further the notion of context and
how it can be studied.

1.2  WAYS OF STUDYING PRAGMATICS

Within a broad definition of pragmatics, we are looking at language in use and at meaning
in the making. As discussed above, core to this endeavour is trying to account for the vari-
ables of ‘context’ in understanding language in use. Rühlemann (2019) offers some useful
parameters for understanding the contextual variables of language. His non-exhaustive list
is summarised in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1  A range of contextual variables that aid understanding language in use (adapted from
Rühlemann, 2019: 6–7)

Variable Description

sequential The utterance(s) that precede and follow an utterance; the utterance(s) that
context can be expected to follow an utterance.
activity context The recognisable activity that the speaker and the hearer are engaged in at
the time of the utterance.
spatiotemporal The time and place when the utterance was made; the receiving, time and
context place of the utterance (for the listener or reader).
multimodal The speaker’s bodily conduct into which the utterance is integrated (e.g.
context posture, direction of gaze, how close they are to the speaker, whether they
move their head or hand when making an utterance, etc.).
intentional What the speaker intends to say in making an utterance, which often may not
context be apparent on the surface structure of the utterance.
emotive context The speaker’s emotional involvement with the entity the utterance is about.
epistemic context The (possibly infinite) range of the speaker’s and the hearer’s knowledge.
social context The power semantic or role relationship that holds between the speaker and
the hearer.

From Rühlemann’s (2019) list we can see that there is a broad matrix within which we
interpret and make meaning, both as interlocutors (speaker and hearer) and as observers
from the outside.
 Introduction 3

TASK 1.1  CONTEXT AND LANGUAGE IN USE

1) Consider the variables in Table 1.1 above. What new variables might be added to
this list? Or, how might any of these be modified or subdivided?
2) In relation to two languages that you are familiar with, discuss how some of these
variables might differ across these languages and related cultures (e.g. in relation
to the activity context).

Language is shaped and reshaped by contextual variables. This is a key consid-

eration when designing ways of researching pragmatics, especially in terms of either
narrowing down or controlling some of these variables, or dealing with their complexity
(e.g. power semantic, role, mode, etc.). We will return to this issue in greater detail in
Chapters 2 and 3.

1.3  THE EMPIRICAL TURN WITHIN PRAGMATICS

While it is noted that the empirical turn came late to pragmatics (Taavitsainen and Jucker,
2015), the field is not without a range of methodological models for gathering data (as we
will discuss in detail in Chapter 2). In order to examine language empirically, a valid and
reliable method of obtaining the data is needed. The main approaches in pragmatics are:
to elicit samples of the pragmatic phenomenon; to observe language and note how it is
used in a given context; to interview speakers about how they might use language or about
their opinions on language use, or to examine samples of recorded language that is stored
electronically in a corpus. Jucker et al. (2018) divide these across the following types of
empirical methodological approaches:

• Experimental pragmatics: e.g. using discourse completion tasks (DCTs), roleplays or

interviews;
• Observational pragmatics: e.g. using ethnographic approaches, involving observation,
field notes and the analysis of recordings;
• Corpus pragmatics: e.g. either through building a small corpus of language or using a
large existing corpus.

We will take a detailed practical look at these methodological approaches in Chapter 2. This
section serves as a general overview.
Over the years, with the growth of studies using empirical data in pragmatics, it cannot
but be noticed that a range of analytical frameworks can be used. We attempt to sum-
marise these in Table 1.2 across six approaches: experimental, ethnographic, ethnometh-
odology/conversation analysis, discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis and corpus
pragmatics.
In reality, approaches to pragmatics research are rarely siloed. By drawing upon syner-
gies in approaches, the researcher can find the optimum means of gathering and analysing
data. This can, for example, mean that an ethnographic approach will use corpus tools to

Table 1.2  A broad summary of the main approaches to gathering and analysing data in pragmatics research
Approach How is language typically collected?
Experimental Prompts are used to elicit a pragmatic
approach phenomenon (e.g. speech act) using
a discourse completion task (DCT),
roleplay or interview.
Ethnographic The researcher is immersed in a
approach  community and makes observation-
based field notes as well as video or
sound recordings.
Ethnomethodology Very short recordings are made or
and conversation identified for a very specific context
analysis  (e.g. calls to a radio phone-in or
emergency helpline).
Discourse analysis  Short recordings or texts from a
specific context are gathered (e.g. a
classroom).
Critical discourse Individual recordings of (usually) public
analysis  speech events or texts are gathered (e.g.
a political speech, a newspaper article
on Brexit, Tweets on a specific topic).
Corpus pragmatics  Large corpora are accessed, usually
online, or small corpora can be built
through text curation or through
recordings. These are transcribed
and sometimes annotated (e.g.
for all instances of a pragmatic
phenomenon).
4
How is language analysed?
The analytical focus is mostly on how speech acts manifest across variables such as speaker
relationship, power semantic, L1 background which allow for pragmatic conclusions resulting
Introduction
from micro-analysis. Much of the interpretation of DCTs draws upon conversation analysis.
The large sample of responses elicited using the prompt task are analysed for patterns of
language use within or across turns, and this is often formulaic or routinised. Where relevant,
turn organisation can be examined and compared across contextual variables.
Observations, field notes and transcribed recordings are thematically analysed for an in-depth
understanding of how language is used in a specific context. Language use in a community is
analysed in an iterative way, where the researcher moves between hypothesising about how
interactions take place based on observations and close analysis of the actual interactions. This
leads to a ‘thick’ description of community activities (Marra and Lazzaro-Salazar, 2018: 359).
Very detailed transcriptions of the turn-by-turn unfolding interactions are analysed so as to
establish turn preference, order and canonical sequencing within given situations. This approach
involves looking in micro-detail at short stretches of interaction (e.g. a call opening) and, from
this, generalisations can be made about role, power or context as they emerge through the turn-
taking order and sequence.
Spoken or written texts are analysed for pragmatic features (e.g. pragmatic markers) or
discourse features (e.g. text organisation).
Usually, small samples of language are viewed from a critical perspective (e.g. the power
semantics of the pronouns used in a text; the use of modality and stance in political
interviews; vagueness or deixis in news reports, etc.).
Corpus tools are used to recall search items from the corpus. Pragmatic items may derive
from word or multi-word unit frequency lists or from keyword analysis. Alternatively, pragmatic
functions may be recalled if the data has been pragmatically annotated or if existing knowledge
of speech act manifestations, such as illocutionary force identifying devices (IFIDs), are used
as the basis for searches. Concordancing is used to look at these search items in a more
contextualised way. There is often a need for close analysis of large amounts of concordance
lines to manually categorise the function of a given form.
 Introduction 5

enable large-scale annotation and analysis. A researcher who crowd-sources discourse

completion test (DCT) responses using an online platform may find that corpus linguistics
offers a useful tool for annotating the results and identifying formulaic use of language
across a large sample. Within the same study, the researcher may find that conversation
analysis best aids the interpretation of power asymmetry in the results from the DCT within
a qualitative sample.
Throughout this book, we take the perspective that corpus linguistics offers much
to better our analysis of data in pragmatics. We are now at a stage where we talk about
corpus pragmatics and this approach is evolving in terms of its definition (see Adolphs,
2008; Romero-Trillo, 2008; O’Keeffe et al., 2011; Rühlemann and Aijmer, 2015; Clancy
and O’Keeffe, 2015). The main corpus tools can tell us the most frequent words or phrases
in a corpus as well as the keywords when compared with another corpus (see below).
These can then be examined in much more contextual detail using concordance searches.
However, corpus tools will neither interpret from nor hypothesise about actual language
use. Corpus software will identify strong patterns based on frequencies or other statistical
measures and this will strongly indicate tendencies, but, for a broader understanding of
language in use, other frameworks have been used.
Let us briefly survey the main functions of corpus tools and how these relate to prag-
matics. Within this overview, we will illustrate how some other approaches and frameworks
shown in Table 1.2 interplay in corpus pragmatics.

1.4  THE MAIN FUNCTIONS OF SOFTWARE TOOLS

USED IN CORPUS PRAGMATICS

Word and multi-word frequency lists

The frequency of a word or a phrase (multi-word unit) tells us about its profile and use. If a
word or phrase recurs in a given context, it is usually indicative of a salient feature. For this
reason, frequency lists are seen as a good starting point for the analysis of a corpus. As
a first step into corpus data, a researcher will look at the word list results and this is often
done by comparing it with another word list from a different corpus. When looking at a word
list comparatively, the researcher is normally more concerned with the distribution at the top
of the rank order list (i.e. the top most frequent words or phrases). The British National Cor-
pus (BNC) (see Appendix) offers a benchmark for typical rank order, for example, the, of, an,
to and a are the first five most frequent items (in that order). In order to discover instances
of the pragmatically specialised use of language, we might take this set as our baseline and
follow up on any differences that might occur, as we illustrate in Task 1.2.

TASK 1.2  COMPARING WORD FREQUENCY RESULTS

Consider the word lists in Table 1.3. It shows actual (‘raw’) results for the top 20 most fre-
quent words in three different corpora:1 the EnTenTen15 (internet texts); The BNC1994
(spoken and written) and the TED_en corpus (TED talks). Notice how the rank order of
the first five items is very similar across the three corpora.
6 Introduction

Table 1.3  Top 20 most frequent words in the EnTenTen15 corpus, The British National Corpus
1994 and the TED_en corpus

EnTenTen15 BNC1994 TED_en

Item Freq Item Freq Item Freq

1. the 936350691 the 6054939 the 139811

2. and 524890456 of 3049448 and 100004
3. of 486715646 and 2624147 to 82141
4. to 428396439 to 2599451 of 77277
5. a 329062259 a 2175967 a 70445
6. in 323377556 in 1945533 that 63294
7. for 182058823 that 1120750 I 55178
8. is 178334830 it 1054366 in 52061
9. that 143529237 is 991771 it 51668
10. on 122967806 was 883547 you 49459
11. with 119656593 for 880805 is 44783
12. it 101713396 I 872236 we 44704
13. as 101373405 on 731234 this 34470
14. are 89170986 you 668407 so 25350
15. I 88646595 with 659976 they 22288
16. this 87053543 as 655175 was 20934
17. be 83961228 be 651542 for 19387
18. by 80782924 he 641241 are 18777
19. at 78206830 at 524061 have 18663
20. from 75534320 by 513428 what 18162

Look at the order of the words from the sixth to the twentieth most frequent (these are
shaded in Table 1.3).

1) Circle the words that stand out as being different in their rank order of frequency.
2) Taking the different types of corpora into consideration, speculate as to why these
words you have circled might be more or less frequent than in the other lists.
3) If you have access to these corpora, examine the words you have identified by
looking at them in concordance lines. Check if your intuition is correct (see also the
section on concordance lines and task 1.4 where we follow up on this).

Corpus software can also count phrases (combinations of words) that frequently recur;
for example, Table 1.4 shows the top ten most frequent two-, three- and four-word units in
the Limerick Corpus of Irish English (LCIE) (see Appendix).

Table 1.4  Ten most frequent two-word, three-word and four-word units in LCIE

Frequency Two-word units Three-word units Four-word units

rank

 1 you know 4406 I don’t know 1212 you know what I 230
 2 in the 3435 do you know 769 know what I mean 215
 Introduction 7

Table 1.4  Continued

Frequency Two-word units Three-word units Four-word units

rank

 3 of the 2354 a lot of 522 do you know what 208

 4 do you 2332 you know what 379 I don’t know what 134
 5 I don’t 2200 do you want 373 do you want to 121
 6 I think 2003 I don’t think 338 are you going to 103
 7 It was 1939 you know the 323 you know the way 103
 8 I was 1891 you have to 308 I don’t know I 91
 9 going to 1849 going to be 307 thank you very much 91
10 on the 1801 yeah yeah yeah 297 the end of the 85

This corpus software function has added much to our understanding of multi-word
units (MWUs). The many terms that have evolved under the umbrella term multi-word units
(MWUs) reflects the ongoing attempt to find the best methodology for both counting and
accounting for the fact that some words seem to occur in units with other words. These
terms often come with slightly differing definitions and include, inter alia: formulas, formu-
laic units, formulaic sequences, routines, fixed expressions, prefabricated patterns (prefabs),
clusters, chunks, concgrams, strings, n-grams and lexical bundles/lexical phrases (see
Greaves and Warren (2010) and Gray and Biber (2015) for coverage of differing terminol-
ogy, methodologies and research findings).
For the purposes of this book, we opt to use the umbrella term multi-word unit (MWU)
unless we are discussing a particular study or relevant finding. Some key issues and find-
ings from research to date include the following:

• MWUs are very common and are defined differently across a number of studies. Termi-
nology and definitions are tied up with important variations in retrieval methods (What
constitutes a unit?; What is the frequency cut-off for inclusion?, etc.);
• MWUs can be examined as continuous (e.g. you know what I mean) or discontinuous
(e.g. the * of * ) sequences;
• We can talk about the length of an MWU in terms of whether it is across two-, three-,
for-, five- or six-word slots and, within these units, we can examine the fixedness or
variability of the constituent components;
• MWUs vary in frequency across speech and writing. For example, Biber et al. (2004)
found lexical bundles to be more frequent in speech than in writing. Other studies
found that continuous units were more frequent in speech, whereas writing (espe-
cially academic registers) relies heavily on discontinuous units which act as frames
(Biber, 2009);
• MWUs vary across registers and many units have become pragmatically specialised in
terms of their discourse function (see Chapter 8).

The study of MWUs is important for pragmatic research because they are often asso-
ciated with functions such as stance marking, focus, text organisation and referential mean-
ing. O’Keeffe et al. (2007), for example, examined MWUs in the Cambridge and Nottingham
Corpus of Discourse in English (CANCODE) (see Appendix), and found that many items
had pragmatically specialised functions in spoken interactions, summarised in Table 1.5.
8 Introduction

Table 1.5  Pragmatically specialised functions of MWUs, based on O’Keeffe et al. (2007)

Function Example

Discourse marking you know; I mean; and then; but I mean; you know what I mean; at the end of the day
Face and politeness do you think; do you want (me) (to); I don’t know if; what do you think; I was
(mitigation) going to say
Vagueness and a couple of; and things like that; or something like that; (and) that sort of thing;
approximation (and) all this/that sort of thing

Other items can be appear to be functionally less specialised but often these items
relate to the world of the speaker or writer. That is, they are frames for referential meaning –
to refer to the shared world of the interlocutors (see Biber et al., 2004; O’Keeffe et al.,
2007; Biber, 2009; Greaves and Warren, 2010). We will explore referential frames in Task
1.3 (based on some selected results from O’Keeffe et al., 2007; Biber, 2009; Gray and
Biber, 2015).

TASK 1.3  EXPLORING MULTI-WORD UNITS

Examine the following high-frequency multi-word units (MWUs) based on existing research
which operate as frames (* marks a slot that can be filled by various possible words):

of the * of     it was *     at the * of *     in the *of     on the * of

1) Think of words that might go into the empty slot marked by * and then sort the
phrases that you have generated into the following common referential categories.
Try to come up with three examples for each category.

Referring to time Referring to place Referring to somewhere in a text

2) Which other category might you add to finish categorising the phrases you have
generated?
3) Can you think of longer phrases that these items might frame across these three
functions (e.g. It was getting late; In the beginning of the century, etc.)?

We will be exploring MWUs in terms of their pragmatic meaning and discourse function
in a number of chapters in this book. Within a corpus pragmatic approach, what interests us
most is how these units function pragmatically across different contexts of language use.

Concordance lines

As discussed above, word frequency lists, when examined comparatively, can point to the
possibility of a word having some specialised meaning or use in a particular context. This
 Introduction 9

can sometimes lead to insights about pragmatically specialised uses when a form is fur-
ther investigated. Therefore, it is essential that frequency analysis is complemented by a
detailed consideration of the environment of a word through the use of concordance tools.
A concordance, as defined by Sinclair (2003: 173), ‘is an index to the places in a text
where particular words and phrases occur’. In a concordance, the search word you enter
will appear in the middle of the search screen (see Figure 1.1). This word is referred to as
the node (in Figure 1.1, have is the node). There are, however, some caveats concerning
concordance lines. The first is that although they provide information on a node (the search
word), they do not interpret it. It is the responsibility of the researcher to use the software
to determine the patterns that are salient and to construct hypotheses as to why these
patterns occur. Therefore, as Baker (2006: 89) states, ‘a concordance analysis is … only
as good as its analyst’. We will now exemplify some of the typical phases that a researcher
might undertake in the process of hypothesis formation, moving iteratively between word
lists, concordances and patterns.
In Task 1.2, when looking at words that seem to be at a higher or lower rank order
across the three lists in the task, you may have noticed the word have. It is in the top
20 most frequent words from the TED_en corpus but it does not appear in the top 20
most frequent words in the other two corpora, EnTenTen15 and the BNC. This points to
the possibility of being used in some specialised way in the TED talks data. When we
create a concordance of have in the TED_en corpus and we sort it to the right of the
node (i.e. organise the words immediately to the right of have in alphabetical order), we
can check for any interesting patterns by scrolling down through the screens of results
(see Figure 1.1).
In scrolling through the screens we are trying to identify patterns, and the norm is to
look for patterns both to the right and left of the node word through sorted searches. To
further examine the patterns of have, we can use the ‘collocates’ function, which is normally
available as part of a corpus tool (see more on collocates below). As Figure 1.2 illustrates,
the software will instantly calculate the most statistically salient words that co-occur to the
left and right of the node word have.
Based on the results in Figure 1.2, any of the top collocates listed merit further inves-
tigation based on their statistical salience.2
By way of illustration, we will examine the first item we by looking at the patterns of
we + have in a concordance (as illustrated in Figure 1.3).
Next, we use the software to calculate the most frequent words immediately to the
right of we + have (often referred to as 1R). The top ten results are shown in Figure 1.4.
The results of this search in Figure 1.4 give us more possible routes of investigation.
Let us follow the first line by examining to. The concordance lines of we + have + to will
show us more patterns. In Task 1.4, we will explore the collocates of we + have + to. For
a researcher, this process would be undertaken by close analysis of concordance lines. In
Table 1.6 we have put together some concordance examples by way of illustration.
Reflecting on the patterns in Table 1.6, we can hypothesise that we have to + [verb],
used in TED talks, is gaining a pragmatically specialised use in a requestive context to make
a call for action or a strong appeal. We note that speakers use we rather than you when
addressing their audience so as to make the request inclusive and global. We may also
speculate that this use is particularly associated with contexts of public discourse on the
issue addressing global climate change.
Figure 1.1  A sample of concordance for have in the TED_en corpus sorted 1R (using Sketch Engine)
 Introduction 11

Figure 1.2  Top ten collocates of have in the TED_en corpus (using Sketch Engine), examining all
word candidates three to the left and three to the right of we

There are many ways of examining and interpreting concordance line data and it is a
process that is central to corpus pragmatics. Here we consider it in greater detail based on
the seminal work of Sinclair (1996). Concordance output facilitates an inductive approach
by helping the user notice patterns relating to how a lexical item or MWU is used in context.
In order to describe the nature of individual units of meaning, Sinclair (1996) suggests four
parameters that are important to the process of interpreting a concordance: collocation,
colligation, semantic preference and semantic prosody:

1) Collocation: refers to lexical patterning and the probability of two words co-occurring
frequently next to or near each other: blonde hair, make an effort, do one’s duty, tor-
rential rain, strictly forbidden, a major incident. Some collocate relationships are strong
because the possibilities of other combinations are few. For example, make/express/
fulfil + wish are strong collocates because wish does not collocate with a wide range
of verbs, whereas the adjective big + car, town, house are weak collocations because
big can collocate with many words (Carter et al., 2011). Corpus software will help you
calculate the strength of a relationship between two words (see Figures 1.2 and 1.4).
Figure 1.3  Concordance sample of we + have as the node (sorted 1R)
 Introduction 13

Figure 1.4  Top ten most frequent words to the right of we + have in the TED_en corpus (using
Sketch Engine)

2) Colligation: refers to the grammatical patterning of words and the likelihood of the
co-occurrence of grammatical choices. By using a certain verb, for example, this may
co-select a particular syntax. For example, we say I was discharged from the hospital
rather than I was discharged out of the hospital. Even though from and out of both
imply exiting from the building, only from colligates with discharge. When we refer to
leaving a hotel, we use a different verb entirely and we use active voice and out of, as
in I checked out of the hotel. The strength of a colligational pattern is also included by
software in its collocates function (see again Figures 1.2 and 1.4 where a number of
grammatical items are included).
3) Semantic preference: refers to how collocates can, through usage, appear to have
a preference for a particular semantic domain. For example, in his discussion of the
expression ‘the naked eye’, Sinclair (1996) finds that most of the verbs and adjectives
that collocate with this expression are related to the concept of ‘vision’. A search
for the collocates of the naked eye using COCA shows visible, invisible, seen, see,
appears, looks all within the top ten most frequent collocates to the left of the search
phrase.
4) Semantic prosodies: associations that arise from the collocates of a lexical item are
not easily detected using introspection (Sinclair, 1987; Louw, 1993). Semantic proso-
dies have mainly been described in terms of their positive or negative polarity (Sinclair,
1991; Stubbs, 1995). For example, naked eye is often found in relation to objects that
cannot be seen with the naked eye. Carter and McCarthy (1999) illustrate the negative
prosody associated with the get passive in the corpus data they examined (e.g. get
arrested, get sued, get nicked). Rühlemann (2010) notes the negative prosody of set in
(e.g. boredom can easily set in).
14 Introduction

TASK 1.4  CORPUS LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE

PATTERNS

Table 1.6 shows us the most frequent verbs that follow we + have + to in the TED_en
corpus. Examine these verbs and their examples.

1) What hypotheses can you form about possible pragmatically specialised uses of
we + have + to + [verb] in TED talks, based on Table 1.6?
2) How might you follow up on these hypotheses using the TED_en corpus or another
corpus?

Table 1.6  A list of the most frequent verbs that follow we + have + to in the TED_en corpus,
with examples

  Word Frequency Example

1) do 67 … we have to do something now. We have to change now.

2) make 33 We have to make this happen.
3) get 33 So we have to get used to the idea of eating insects.
4) be 30 So we have to be disciplined and focus on things that are critical.
5) go 27 And we have to go also beyond traditional diplomacy to the
survival issue of our times, climate change.
6) have 25 But we have to have these priority changes, we have to have
infrastructure to go with this.
7) start 22 … we have to start seeing it exactly as it is, with all of its problems,
because it’s only by seeing it with all of its problems that we’ll be able to
fix them and live in a world in which we can all be happily ever after.
8) deal 21 But I believe there’s a second climate crisis, which is as severe,
which has the same origins, and that we have to deal with with
the same urgency.
9) change 20 We have to change the culture and the feelings that politicians
and school board members and parents have about the way we
accept and what we accept in our schools today.
10) solve 18 We have to solve the pollution, we have to solve the congestion.

At this point, let us distinguish between collocation, colligation and multi-word units
(MWUs) (detailed above); we note that collocation and colligation are concerned with the
co-occurrence relationship of one word with another word rather than as a unit. Crucially,
the researcher sets out to examine the collocational or colligational relationship of a given
word in a more top-down manner. That is, they choose to examine it as we did here with the
word have and its patterns. A researcher looking at MWUs takes a more open, bottom-up
approach through corpus software searches for n-gram units within the parameters they
set (e.g. a researcher might opt to find two-, three-, four-, five- or six-word units, with a min-
imum frequency cut-off of 20 per million, etc.) (see Greaves and Warren (2010) and Gray
and Biber (2015) for useful background on this topic). Both top-down collocational and
colligational analyses and bottom-up MWU approaches are important to corpus pragmatics
 Introduction 15

and, in both cases, it is through concordance line analysis that we can analyse meaning,
discourse function and ultimately pragmatic specialisation.

Keyword analysis

Keywords can be described as words (or MWUs) which occur with unusual frequency in a
text or a set of texts in a corpus when compared to another corpus. The corpus used for
comparison is called the reference corpus. Keywords are identified on the basis of statis-
tical comparisons of word frequency lists from the reference corpus and the corpus under
investigation (referred to as the target or study corpus). The frequency of each item in the
target corpus is compared with its equivalent in the reference corpus and the statistical
significance or difference is calculated using chi-square or log-likelihood statistics (see
Dunning, 1993). The choice of the reference corpus used as the basis for comparison in the
calculation of keywords is important because it will affect the output of keywords (Gabriela-
tos (2018) offers detailed coverage of this). When generating keyword lists, it is best to try
more than one reference corpus and to consider the differences in the results. In general
terms, the closer the reference corpus is in terms of genre, the fewer keywords will result
because fewer items will be unusually frequent. Conversely, the more distant a reference
corpus is in terms of genre from the target corpus, the more words will have comparatively
more unusual frequencies, and so more keywords will normally result from the comparison.
These differences (as a result of using different reference data) are in themselves telling,
as Task 1.5 illustrates.

TASK 1.5  COMPARING KEYWORD RESULTS

Table 1.7 and 1.8 show two sets of keyword results. Both lists are generated from the
same text but use different reference corpora. The target text was the well-known
1995 BBC 1 Panorama television interview by Martin Bashir with Diana, Princess of
Wales.3
Review and compare the list and consider these questions:

1) What are the main differences between these two lists?

2) What might account for these differences?
3) Which list is most useful and why?

Target corpus: Panorama interview 8,301 words

Reference corpus 1 SPOKEN MEDIA: a corpus of 271,553 words comprising
a range of transcripts from media interviews: 29 political interviews; 46 interviews on TV
chat shows and radio involving known or public personae; and 17 interviews from radio
phone-ins drawn from international English-speaking media sources, including from the
UK, USA, Canada, Australia and Ireland (see O’Keeffe, 2006).
Reference corpus 2 SPOKEN ACADEMIC: a 500,000-word corpus, The
Limerick-Belfast Corpus of Academic Spoken English (LIBEL) (see Appendix).
16 Introduction

Table 1.7  KEYWORD LIST 1: All of the keywords based on comparison of the Bashir–Diana
Panorama interview with Spoken Media Corpus (arranged vertically in the grids in order of ‘keyness’)

did husband difficult queen your

was had William Were children
Wales uh royal yourself media
prince monarchy my because depression
marriage bulimia role relationship husband’s

Table 1.8  KEYWORD LIST 2: A sample of the 92 keywords based on comparison of the
Bashir–Diana Panorama interview with Spoken Academic Corpus (arranged vertically in the
grids in order of ‘keyness’)

was I’ve I’d because people think

I it’s marriage monarchy difficult never
don’t me people’s myself public wasn’t
husband uh bulimia role there’s Mr.
my yes you’re husband’s yourself princess
I’m didn’t queen couldn’t relationship royal
did had William divorce feel pressures
Wales prince were that’s loved albeit

Some commentary on the keyword lists in Task 1.5 is based on O’Keeffe (2006, 2012) and
Vaughan and O’Keeffe (2015).
On one hand, the results in Table 1.8, based on the more ‘distant’ reference in terms
of its genre, appear more wide-ranging (in all there are 92 keywords from this calculation)
and capture more of the ‘aboutness’ of the target text (Phillips, 1989). We find common
first- and second-person pronouns I, I’m, my, myself, yourself and me arising as keywords
because they are not high frequency in academic lectures and thus arise as ‘unusually fre-
quent’. We also see keyword results (Table 1.8) that reference the more private sphere of the
‘I–you’ domain, including husband–wife relationships, love, bulimia, marital breakdown, etc.,
all of which would not normally be talked about in the more referential world of academia.
Meanwhile, in Table 1.7, we see that by using a reference corpus that was close in genre
to the target text there were far fewer items. In other words, we can say that the results in
Table 1.7 possibly represent more salient keywords because, despite the reference corpus
being close to the target, these words are still used with unusual frequency by comparison.
Therefore, working through concordances of this candidate list might be more productive
(and more doable in scale). Gabrielatos (2018) notes that the size of the reference corpus
is not as important as the representativeness of each corpus, and the principled selection
of corpora to be compared.
Finally, a comment on the challenges of spoken corpora. In Tables 1.7 and 1.8, we
notice that the vocalisation uh appears as a keyword in both lists. This is most likely a
function of the variation in the transcription of vocalisations in the reference corpus which
comprises many media transcripts. Some transcribe the same or similar vocalisation as
 Introduction 17

uhm, erm or ah, among others. This is an important point regarding the analysis of spoken
corpora: if similar words or vocalisations are transcribed differently, this will have a bearing
on keyword calculations (for more on transcription, see Chapter 2).

1.5  THE STRUCTURE OF THIS BOOK

This book is structured around nine chapters. These move from introductory matters in
this chapter, including the history, origin and emergence of the field and an overview of the
application of different analytical frameworks in empirical research. In this chapter we also
cover the basic functions of corpus tools because it sets the scene for much of what we
talk about in other chapters.
Chapter 2 looks in detail at how pragmatics can be researched. This chapter show-
cases quite a large toolkit available to a researcher who is interested in gathering data
for pragmatics research. It distinguishes between elicited, observed and recorded data,
and guides the reader through the different instruments that can be used under these
three broad headings. All methods have pluses and minuses and we try to present a
balanced view. Although we clearly have a preference for using corpus data, we are keen
to stress that other methods have a lot to offer in themselves and if used in conjunction
with corpus tools (as we explore in detail in Chapter 3, see below). The main point to
take away from Chapter 2 is that there is a need for methodological awareness. Some
methods can be highly controlled so that the researcher can be very precise in the lan-
guage that they elicit but this is at the expense of the degree to which the researcher
compromises on the naturalness of the data. On the other hand, naturally occurring data
can be elicited and recorded through note-taking or digital recording but the researcher
has little control over the data that results and this can pose challenges for pragmatics
research. What is interesting in Chapter 2 is the range of approaches that have emerged
for gathering research data within the empirical turn in pragmatics, as we have already
alluded to in this chapter.
Chapter 3 focuses on corpus pragmatics, a recent coinage for the coming together of
corpus linguistics and pragmatics. The chapter addresses the processes of doing corpus
pragmatics research in a way that accommodates different approaches. Corpus pragmat-
ics usually works from frequencies of forms to their pragmatic function in what is termed
a form-to-function approach (this is exemplifed in this chapter through our analysis in the
section on concordance lines, for instance). In this approach, the frequency lists and con-
cordance lines ultimately lead us to a conclusion about the use of a form (e.g. we have to in
TED talks; see above). The opposite approach is to begin with the function (e.g. a speech
act), and to try to narrow down the range of possible forms used to perform this and to use
these forms to find language instances in a corpus. For example, the words and phrases
typically associated with a speech act (as a result of experimental research, such as illocu-
tionary force identifying devices (IFIDs)) can be used to search a large corpus to retrieve
examples. This approach is referred to as a function-to-form approach. In an ideal world,
function-to-form approaches are facilitated by pragmatically annotated corpus data so that
all instances of a given speech act or pragmatic phenomenon (such as a pragmatic marker)
can simply be recalled. At the time of writing, pragmatic annotation is fast developing (see
Weisser, 2015; Archer and Culpeper, 2018).
18 Introduction

Chapter 4 furthers our exploration of key concepts within the study of pragmatics
through its focus on reference. The chapter covers its general definition as well as going
into analytical depth in terms of how deictic reference can be examined using corpus prag-
matics. Deixis represents the intersection of grammar and pragmatics, and the chapter
explores many of these grammatical items such as the personal pronouns you and I and the
demonstratives this and that. This chapter showcases the potential of corpus pragmatics
for examining the relationship between the context of the utterance and the referential
practices therein. This relationship is shown to characterise the very nature of our pragmatic
systems.
In Chapter 5, we explore politeness theory through the lens of a number of different
models. Within these paradigms, we examine some key features using corpus pragmatic
techniques. For example, we explore Brown and Levinson’s (1987) concepts of positive
politeness through a case study of vocatives, and negative politeness through a micro-study
of hedging across different contexts of use. In this chapter, we also look at the concept of
impoliteness in the context of naturally occurring data. Finally, we examine discursive polite-
ness where we look beyond linguistic structures to include the individual’s interpretation of
these structures as (im)polite in instances of ongoing verbal interaction. This brings to the
fore the dynamic notion of relational work.
Speech acts are the focus of Chapter 6, which examines the link between linguistic
forms in the shape of speech acts and their function in context. We provide an overview of
Speech Act Theory and discuss the main arguments and underlying assumptions on which
this theory is based. This includes a discussion of direct and indirect speech acts, performa-
tives and constatives, and the broad taxonomy of different speech act categories such as
directives or commissives. The chapter also looks at the way in which context and co-text
impact upon the analysis of speech acts in a discourse framework. Throughout this chapter,
we explore ways of using corpus pragmatics in the form-to-function analysis of speech
acts. This adds further context to issues discussed in both Chapters 2 and 3.
Drawing upon a range of different corpora, Chapter 7 examines pragmatic variation
within a language. As we note, the study of language variation has traditionally focused on
phonological, lexical and syntactical levels, particularly taking an historic view. The system-
atic study of variation at a pragmatic level is a relatively recent development by comparison.
This chapter also highlights the broadening of the variational focus from phonology, lexis
and syntax to variation in social space. This is achieved through explorations of variation
from a macro-social perspective (e.g. factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, social class,
etc.), and from a micro-social perspective (e.g. more ‘local’ factors such as the degree of
social distance between participants (strangers, friends, family) or power (an employee talk-
ing to her or his boss)).
To contrast with the focus of Chapter 7 on variation within a language, we go a
level deeper in Chapter 8 to examine variation in terms of register. In this chapter, we
will explore the notion that specific registers involve the pragmatically specialised use
of language. In doing so, we will draw upon naturally occurring language from a range
of contexts, including casual conversation, healthcare communication, crime fiction, ser-
vice encounters and Shakespearean drama. The chapter again employs a corpus prag-
matic approach to the examination of features characteristic of these specific situations.
This chapter also builds on Chapter 2 in relation to the synergies between conversation
 Introduction 19

analysis (CA) and corpus linguistics, offering some useful examples of how CA can aid in
the analysis of corpus data.
The final chapter in our book, Chapter 9, looks at pragmatics and language teaching,
and considers the degree to which it is teachable and learnable in the context of the ongo-
ing debate in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) studies in relation to implicit and explicit
learning. The chapter explores areas of pragmatics that can be addressed in the classroom,
through both hands-on corpus tasks as well as through the curation of teacher-led activi-
ties and materials. The chapter includes a wider range of samples of classroom materials
based around the teaching of politeness and spoken grammar, including pragmatic mark-
ers (discourse markers, response tokens, etc.), as well as vagueness and stance markers.
Developments in learner corpus research in terms of how it can inform language teaching
are showcased through learner corpus-based resources that are differentiated by level of
proficiency. Throughout the chapter, there is an emphasis on modelling corpus tasks based
on existing research findings, as it is argued that this offers a means for bringing focus to
pragmatic competence within curriculum, syllabus and materials design.
Each chapter in this book contains an annotated further reading section intended to
guide the reader to texts that expand upon key topics discussed in each chapter. The book
also includes, as this chapter has demonstrated, tasks which are embedded within key
topics. Some of these tasks involve reader interaction with specific corpus interfaces and
specially designed corpus software. Our goal is to show the reader how the interfaces and
software can be used in corpus pragmatic research – should more information about the
specifics of using these tools be required, there are some very helpful textbooks available
(see e.g. O’Keeffe and McCarthy, 2010; Weisser, 2016a; Anderson and Corbett, 2017). We
do not assume that a reader will undertake all of these activities, but we hope that they offer
an instructive application of the core concepts that we are discussing.

1.6  FURTHER READING

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

Cambridge University Press.
Because corpora came relatively late to pragmatics, this volume marks an important and
significant stage in the establishment and coinage of ‘corpus pragmatics’ as a sub-field of
pragmatics. In addition to the 16 chapters, the volume includes an important introduction
to the volume by Aijmer and Rühlemann, which takes on a foundational role for the use of
corpora in the empirical study of pragmatics.

Clancy, B. and A. O’Keeffe, 2015. Pragmatics. In D. Biber and R. Reppen (eds), The
Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 235–251.
This chapter showcases the potential of corpus pragmatics to bring insights through
research into forms, their patterns and pragmatic functions in large corpora. It cov-
ers aspects of deixis, pragmatic markers, language and power; discourse organisation,
and provides a case study on the use of a corpus to explore vocative forms and their
functions.
20 Introduction

Jucker, A. H., 2012. Pragmatics in the history of linguistic thought. In K. Allan and K.M.
Jaszczolt (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, pp. 495–512.
This chapter offers a wide-ranging overview of the emergence of pragmatic thought and
how it developed across two schools, the Anglo-American and Continental European tra-
ditions. By reading this chapter, a student of pragmatics will gain greater insight into why
there are very different approaches within the field, ranging from introspective to empirical
in terms of research method.
Schneider, K.P. and A. Barron (eds), 2014. Pragmatics of Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
This edited volume brings together 21 chapters addressing approaches to the analysis
of discourse pragmatics, including discourse markers, stance, speech act sequences as
well as an overview of work across different contexts, including legal, medical, media and
classroom discourse domains. In terms of approaches to discourse analysis within which
pragmatics can be viewed, it includes work on conversation analysis, systemic-functional
linguistics, genre analysis, critical discourse analysis, corpus linguistics and multimodal
pragmatics.

NOTES

1 See Appendix for corpus details.

2 Figure 1.2 illustrates the log dice results as a measure of collocation candicacy based
on 4895 co-occurrences of we with have from all the possible 44,704 candidates of we
in the TED_ corpus. For more on statistics in corpus linguistics, see Brezina (2018) and
Gries (2015), among others.
3 Broadcast in November 1995, the interview transcript is available at www.bbc.co.uk/
politics97/diana/panorama.html.
1 Rühlemann (2019: 12–13) provides a full transcription system.
2 ELAN How-to Guide, 2017. Available from https://tla.mpi.nl/wp-content/uploads/
2017/01/How-to-pages_9.pdf.
3 See Healy and Onderdonk-Horan (2012) and Appendix.
4 Note the use of ye in the extract in Figure 2.12. This is a common form in Irish English to
refer to the second-person plural.
1 Corpus software may calculate per million-word results for you automatically. To manually
calculate PMW amounts, simply divide the frequency result for the search item by
the total number of words in the corpus and multiply this amount by one million.Table
3.2  Comparing Schauer and Adolphs’ (2006) DCT results with two spoken corpora
1 Ironically, the metadata for the Spoken BNC2014 provides us with the date of recording
so that we can actually determine when today and tomorrow were, but the point is that
this cannot be done purely by reference to the immediate context.
2 This example is taken from Halliday and Hasan (1976: 39).
3 For more information about TravCorp see Clancy (2011).
4 This struck-through concordance line has been included for illustrative purposes. The
line can be deleted from the list in AntConc by holding down the ‘Ctrl’ key, clicking on the
concordance line and pressing the ‘Delete’ key.
5 Tommers is an Irish English slang word for paid work that people do when they are also
in receipt of government payment for being unemployed. This practice is illegal in Ireland.
1 The term ‘architecture’ is attributed to the work of Seedhouse (2005).
2 Throughout the book, we mostly refer to these items as multi-word units. However, in the
WordSmith Tools software, these items are referred to as clusters.
3 Example adapted from Cheng and Warren (2003).
4 Vague category markers have also variously been referred to in the literature as general
extenders (Overstreet and Yule, 1997a, 1997b), generalised list completers (Jefferson,
1990), tags (Ward and Birner, 1993), terminal tags (Dines, 1980), extension particles
(Dubois, 1993), vague category identifiers (Channell, 1994) and vague extenders (Stubbe
and Holmes, 1995; Cheshire, 2007; Tagliamonte and Denis, 2010; Parvaresh et al., 2012;
Parvaresh, 2018).
5 These frequency differences are statistically significant. To check the statistical significance
of comparative frequency results, an online tool such as the ‘Log-likelihood and effect size
calculator’ (http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/llwizard.html) can be used.
1 Frequency counts for Spoken BNC1994 in Table 8.2 are taken from Leech et al. (2001)
1 If you would like more detailed research-based information on invitations (among
other speech acts) and related teaching resources, see the webpage of the Center for
Advanced Studies on Language Acquisition (University of Minnesota) (https://carla.umn.
edu/speechacts/descriptions.html).
2 The MICUSP has two options for results: raw actual figures or normalised figures which
are calculated to ‘per 10,000 words’. Normalised results need to be used when comparing
frequencies across disciplines. Simply check the ‘raw’ or ‘per 10,000 words’ option at the
top of the webpage interface.
3 Lexical bundles are recurrent non-idiomatic sequences or patterns of words. They
have been found to be register-specific and much work has been done on their use in
academic writing in particular (see Biber et al., 2004). While lexical bundles come under
the general umbrella of multi-word units (see Chapter 1), it is important to understand
 their definition. Biber et al. (1999) define them as structural/grammatical sequences
of four-, five- or six-word sequences that occur at least ten times per million words in a
given register across at least five different texts.
4 See www.englishprofile.org/english-grammar-profile/egp-online.
5 For access to free downloadable resources, go to www.trinitycollege.com/site/?id=3662.
6 See www.trinitycollege.com/site/?id=3662 for more resources.
7 Biology (BIO); Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE); Economics (ECO); Education
(EDU);  English (ENG); History and Classical Studies (HIS); Industrial and Operations
Engineering (IOE); Linguistics (LIN); Mechanical Engineering (MEC); Natural Resources
and Environment (NRE); Nursing (NUR); Philosophy (PHI); Physics (PHY); Political
Science (POL); Psychology (PSY); Sociology (SOC).
FURTHER READING

Adolphs, S., 2008. Corpus and Context: Investigating Pragmatic Functions in Spoken Dis-
course. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
This book explores the relationship between corpus linguistics and pragmatics. In particular,
it discusses possible frameworks for analysing units of language beyond the single word.
This involves a close analysis of contextual variables in relation to lexico-grammatical and
discoursal patterns that emerge from the corpus data, as well as a wider discussion of the
role of context in spoken corpus research.

Jucker, A.H., K.P. Schneider and W. Bublitz (eds), 2018. Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
This edited volume is an invaluable resource for research methods in the empirical study of
pragmatics. It is divided across introspective, experimental, observational and corpus prag-
matics research. Some of the many papers that will be of use include the following:

• Anderson, G. (2018) Corpus construction (pp. 467–494).

• Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. (2018) Role plays (pp. 305–331).
• Jucker, A.H. (2018) Data in pragmatic research (pp. 3–36).
• Marra, M. and M. Lazzaro-Salazar (2018) Ethnographic methods in pragmatics (pp.
343–366).
• Ogiermann, E. (2018) Discourse completion tasks (pp. 229–183).
• Schneider, K.P. (2018) Methods and ethics of data collection (pp. 37–93).

Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), 2008. Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics: A Mutualistic Entente.

Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
This volume curates a range of chapters that explore pragmatics using corpus linguistics.
These include areas such as cross-cultural pragmatics in service encounters; hesitation in
learner discourse; and listenership in multimodal corpora. Most of all, this book seeks to
bring pragmatics and corpus linguistics closer by showcasing both disciplinary synergy and
methodological potential.

Rühlemann, C., 2010. What can a corpus tell us about pragmatics? In A. O’Keeffe and
M. McCarthy (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics (1st edn). Abingdon:
Routledge, pp. 288–301 [and Rühlemann, C., forthcoming. What can a corpus tell us
about pragmatics? In A. O’Keeffe and M. McCarthy (eds), The Routledge Handbook of
Corpus Linguistics (2nd edn). Abingdon: Routledge].
This chapter gives good coverage of the limitations of corpus linguistics in relation to the
study of pragmatics while at the same time providing a solid grounding in what a corpus
can address in pragmatics-related research. It provides examples of how a corpus can be
used to look at turn organisation, semantic prosody, discourse markers and speech act
expressions. It also addresses the importance of multimodal corpora to the future of corpus
pragmatics research.

Rühlemann, C., 2019. Corpus Linguistics for Pragmatics. London: Routledge.

This book offers a very practical introduction to how corpus linguistics can be used in the
study of core areas of pragmatics, including speech acts, deixis, pragmatic markers, evalu-
ation and conversational structure. In addition, the book showcases the building, annotation
and use of the SITCO, a pilot multimodal corpus. In this book, an adaptation of conversation
analysis transcription is applied to enhance the existing transcription of the BNCweb. This
offers a useful guide for those interested in using a narrow transcription. Rühlemann’s sam-
ple extracts (of narrow transcription) can be compared with the original broad transcript,
which are linked to the sound files.

Aijmer, K. 2018. ‘Corpus pragmatics: From form to function’. In A.H. Jucker, K.P. Schneider
and W. Bublitz (eds), Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 555–585.
O’Keeffe, A. 2018. ‘Corpus-based function-to-form approaches’. In A.H. Jucker, K.P. Schnei-
der and W. Bublitz (eds), Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 587–618.
Both Aijmer’s and O’Keeffe’s chapters offer useful methodological perspectives and pro-
cesses for corpus pragmatics for both form-to-function and function-to-form approaches.
For the development of holistic CP processes, it is important to accommodate a model that
includes the methodological processes exemplified across the span of these chapters.

Garcia McAllister, P. 2015. ‘Speech acts: A synchronic perspective’. In K. Aijmer and

C. Rühlemann (eds), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, pp. 29–51.
This chapter provides a useful example of a study where a large corpus was used to exam-
ine a speech act (in this case directives) by means of careful, meticulous and principled
sampling and analytical processes. The research is honest about the challenges and scale
of this approach. It offers a possible model for replication using different corpus data.
Lutzky, U. and A. Kehoe. 2017a. ‘“I apologise for my poor blogging”: Searching for apol-
ogies in the Birmingham Blog Corpus.’ Corpus Pragmatics, 1, 37–56.

Lutzky, U. and A. Kehoe. 2017b. ‘“Oops, I didn’t mean to be so flippant”. A corpus prag-
matic analysis of apologies in blog data.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 116, 27–36.
Both of these papers are of interest to anyone interested in using CP in the context of
exploring speech acts in large corpora. They both draw upon blog data and offer inter-
esting work arounds in terms of using IFIDs to aid speech act recall in a function-to-form
approach. While both papers look at apologies, they will be of use for those interested in
replicating a study on a different speech act or dataset.

Schauer, G.A. and S. Adolphs. 2006. ‘Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data:
Vocabulary, formulaic sequences and pedagogy.’ System, 34(1), 119–134.
This paper looks at the similarities and differences between data drawn from DCTs and a
corpus. The authors focus on expressions of gratitude, using both DCTs and corpus data
from the five-million-word spoken corpus CANCODE. They compare their results with a
view to pedagogic applications. The paper is also useful to researchers because it offers
insights into the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches.

Botley, S. and T. McEnery, 2001. ‘Demonstratives in English: A corpus-based study.’

Journal of English Linguistics, 29(1), 7–33.
This corpus-based study offers an analysis of demonstrative pronouns (this, that, these and
those) based on an exploration of three 100,000-word corpora. The paper explores a vari-
ety of questions commonly associated with demonstratives, including their function and
distribution across genres.
Rühlemann, C., 2007. Conversation in Context: A Corpus-driven Approach. London: Continuum.
This volume places deixis at the core of the analysis of the spoken component of the British
National Corpus. In addition to providing ‘traditional’ deictic analyses of person, place and time
deixis (see in particular ch. 4), Rühlemann also integrates other features of conversation, such as
speech-reporting, discourse markers and vocatives and terms of address into the deictic system.

Rühlemann, C. and B. Clancy, 2018. Corpus linguistics and pragmatics. In C. Ilie and N.
Norrick (eds), Pragmatics and its Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 241–266.
This chapter integrates the qualitative methodology typical of pragmatics with the quan-
titative methodology predominant in corpus linguistics. To illustrate, the choice between
indicative was and subjunctive were in as-if clauses is examined in COCA. This was/
were choice is considered in relation to empathetic deixis, a realm which remains much
under-researched in pragmatics.
Vaughan, E. and B. Clancy, 2013. ‘Small corpora and pragmatics.’ Yearbook of Corpus
Linguistics and Pragmatics, 1, 53–73.
The authors explore the manifold advantages of using small, domain-specific corpora in
pragmatic research, among them the constant interpretative dialectic between text and
context and the fact that the results generated by these corpora, especially when looking
at high frequency items, are manageable, even for the novice researcher. The suitability of
corpora in the 20,000 to 50,000-word range for corpus pragmatic study is illustrated by a
contrastive analysis of the occurrences of the pronoun we in C-MELT (see Appendix) and
a corpus of family discourse. The results demonstrate the complexity of we with regard to
personal and social deixis.

Brown, P. and S. Levinson, [1978] 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Perhaps the most famous, and undeniably the most remarked-upon, work in linguistic polite-
ness. The study itself is based on three unrelated languages and cultures: Tamil in India,
Tzeltal in Mexico, and English in the US and England. The model presented in the book has
been the subject of extensive, and still ongoing, critique, ensuring that its influence on the
fields of sociolinguistics and pragmatics can still be felt over 30 years after its reissue.

Culpeper, J., 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
This is a book for researchers interested in the role of taboo language in our everyday lives.
However, to recommend this book on that basis alone would be akin to arguing that impo-
liteness is purely antisocial in nature. As equally comfortable in the realm of the TV show
as he is with first-century BC written texts, Culpeper moves between these contexts to
examine the different forms and functions of impoliteness in society, exploring, for example,
notions of affective, coercive and entertaining impoliteness.

Culpeper, J., M. Haugh and D. Kádár (eds), 2017. The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic
(Im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
This handbook begins with a comprehensive examination of the foundational concepts of
(im)politeness research and the most salient developments in the field in recent times. It
then looks at variation in (im)politeness at both a macro- (e.g. gender, region or culture)
and micro- (e.g. the workplace, service encounters or political settings) level. This reflects
the broadening influence of the field of (im)politeness research from its traditional home in
pragmatics and interactional sociolinguistics to new, diverse fields such as health research
and humour studies, to name but two.

Locher, M., 2006. ‘Polite behaviour within relational work: The discursive approach to
politeness.’ Multilingua, 25, 249–267.
Although the discursive approach to politeness began with the work of Watts (e.g. 2003), it
is this article by Locher that arguably provides the novice researcher with the most accessi-
ble introduction to the field. The core concept of relational work and its role in understand-
ing both politic and polite language use is clearly laid out and illustrated using naturally
occurring data from an American internet health column.

Aijmer, K., 1996. Conversational Routines in English. London: Longman.

Drawing upon data taken from the London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English, this book anal-
yses recurrent speech act expressions, such as thank you or Can youX? A range of speech
act functions are covered, including indirect requests, thanking and apologising. The book
offers an in-depth analysis of pragmatic functions and also takes into account the discourse
context in which they occur.

Barron, A., 2017. ‘The speech act of “offers” in Irish English.’ World Englishes, 36(2),
224–238.
This article focuses on speech act variation in Irish and British English. The study compares
corpus data, specifically in the form of the spoken face-to-face text category, in the Repub-
lic of Ireland component of ICE-Ireland with ICE-Great Britain. The article demonstrates the
value of cross-cultural comparative speech act research given that significant differences
were unearthed between offers in the two corpora at both pragmalinguistic and socioprag-
matic levels.

Jucker, A.H. and I. Taavitsainen (eds), 2008. Speech Acts in the History of English.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
This edited volume takes a historical perspective to the study of speech acts and includes a
set of articles that explore the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of the use of
speech acts. The volume is divided into three parts: directives and commissives, expressives
and assertives, and methods of speech act retrieval. It is a particularly useful book for those
interested in studying speech acts on the basis of corpus data.

Weisser, M., 2016. ‘DART – The dialogue annotation and research tool.’ Corpus Linguis-
tics and Linguistic Theory, 12(2), 355–388.
Because corpus pragmatics is still in its relative infancy, automatic pragmatic tagging,
although increasingly common, represents an ongoing challenge in the field. In this article,
Weisser outlines the use of his Discourse Annotation and Research (DART) tool to tag the
SPAADIA, a corpus of telephone transactional dialogues. DART automatically annotates up
to 57 speech act types and facilitates the extraction of both formal (syntactic) and func-
tional (speech act) properties.

Aijmer, K., 2013. Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
In her book, Aijmer marries the traditional subset of pragmatic markers – items such as well,
actually or in fact – with the more recent approach of variational pragmatics, i.e. pragmatic
variation at a macro- and micro-level. Therefore, the book focuses on variation in pragmatic
markers at varietal, text and activity level. Using the ICE suite of corpora, Aijmer demon-
strates how the examination of PMs at these levels broadens our understanding of the
categorisation and function of these key pragmatic items.
Flöck, I., 2016. Requests in American and British English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
This volume examines the use of request strategies across both cultural and methodologi-
cal dimensions. From a cultural point of view, the structure of request strategies is compared
in naturally occurring conversation in British and American English. From a methodological
pint of view, these strategies are compared in non-elicited data in the form of ICE-Great
Britain and the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English and elicited data in the
form of DCTs (see Chapter 2). The validity of the current use of DCTs as a method of col-
lecting data for pragmatic research is challenged, and suggestions aimed at modifying and
improving this data collection technique are posited.

McCarthy, M., 2015. ‘Tis mad yeah’: Turn openers in Irish and British English. In
C.  Amador-Moreno, K. McCafferty and E. Vaughan (eds), Pragmatic Markers in Irish
English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 156–175.
This chapter demonstrates how corpus linguistics can be used to highlight the import-
ant connection between the turn-taking system and its pragmatic function. Building on
his (2002) work in relation to single-word lexical response tokens in British and North
American English, McCarthy encourages the broadening of what are traditionally con-
sidered pragmatic markers to include turn-initial, non-minimal lexical response tokens
such as right, lovely, grand, etc. What emerges is that varieties of English share much in
common in terms of the items that realise pragmatic functions at turn openings; how-
ever, each variety does show a preference for a distinct core of items at initial position
in the turn.

Vaughan, E., McCarthy, M. and Clancy, B. 2017. ‘Vague category markers as turn final
items in Irish English.’ World Englishes, 36(2), 208–223.
Although the title suggests a focus on one variety of English, this article compares intimate
corpus data from Irish and British English. In particular, the focus is on vague category
markers – (and) things/stuff (like that), and/or whatever, and so forth – which have been
identified in the previous literature as frequently occurring. These items are then used as
linguistic hooks to search the corpora. The findings show that VCMs in final position fre-
quently trigger speaker change but that their use as a trigger is more common in British
English than in Irish English which tends to favour more traditional pragmatic markers such
as like and you know in turn final position.

Clancy, B. and M. McCarthy, 2015. Co-constructed turn-taking. In K. Aijmer and C.

Rühlemann (eds), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 430–453.
The most familiar manifestation of co-construction is where one speaker provides a lexical
resolution to another’s turn – effectively finishing their sentence. However, co-construc-
tion refers to a wider range of conversational events where speakers collaboratively create
either a formal artefact (a word, clause, sentence) or functional artefact (a proposition,
speech act, narrative) across turn boundaries. Using a corpus linguistic methodology, this
chapter demonstrates how co-construction is closely connected to the realm of pragmat-
ics due to the politeness issues involved in the joint construction of meaning in casual
conversation.

Jonsson, E., 2015. Conversational Writing: A Multidimensional Study of Synchronous and

Supersynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Although this book does not have an overtly pragmatic focus, it is worthy of further read-
ing. It illustrates the use of Biber’s multidimensional approach to the study of variation
in spoken and written registers to analyse computer-mediated conversational writing.
Jonsson compares a corpus of conversational writing featuring both internet relay chat
and split-window ICQ chat to both a spoken corpus (a subset of the Santa Barbara cor-
pus) and a written one (the Lancaster-Oslo-Bergen (LOB) corpus). This allows for the
comparison of CMC with both spoken and written language. Of particular note is that the
split-window ICQ chat emerges as the most intimate, conversational form of writing ever
documented. Many of the lexico-grammatical features that mark this as highly intimate
and conversational – such as first- and second-person pronouns, direct WH questions,
modal auxiliaries and negation – form an important part of the English language interper-
sonal pragmatic system.

Mahlberg, M. and D. McIntyre, 2011. ‘A case for corpus stylistics: Ian Fleming’s Casino
Royale.’ English Text Construction, 4(2), 204–227.
Again, this is not an article that focuses on pragmatics per se. The authors do, how-
ever, provide an analysis of the keywords and key semantic domains of a corpus of
popular fiction in the form of Ian Fleming’s novel Casino Royale. The identification of
reader-centred keywords, particularly those related to the anatomical and physiolog-
ical domain such as body or hand, are used to show how Fleming employed these
stylistic devices to exploit the affective connection between Fleming’s James Bond
character and the reader.

Sacks, H., E.A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson, 1974. ‘A simplest systematics for the
organisation of turn-taking for conversation.’ Language, 50, 696–735.
This ground-breaking article sets out the principles for simplest organisation of
turn-taking in conversation. The authors based their findings on observations of real con-
versations. Conversational structure, they propose, hinges around the activities of turn
construction and turn allocation. The authors propose that the system which they identify
is universal across languages. It might therefore be a worthwhile project to investigate
this further in different languages (as researchers have done) and to look at how these
turn-taking structures, and their influence on the pragmatic sphere, may differ in specific
discourse domains.

Basturkmen, H. and T.T.M. Nguyen, 2017. Teaching pragmatics. In A. Barron, G. Steen

and Y. Guo (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.
563–574.
A wide-ranging survey of the ongoing issues, debates and sub-fields relating to the teaching
of pragmatics is provided. This chapter is an excellent starting point for anyone interested
in getting a succinct overview across a range of areas relating to pragmatics instruction.
Gablasova, D., V. Brezina and T. McEnery, 2019. The Trinity Lancaster Corpus: Appli-
cations in language teaching and materials development. In S. Götz and J. Mukherjee
(eds), Learner Corpora and Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 8–28.
This chapter details the insights based on a corpus of oral exam interviews in the Trinity
Lancaster Corpus and many of these relate to pragmatic competence in spoken interac-
tion. Importantly, the chapter illustrates how robust corpus findings were used to develop
materials.

Jones, C., S. Byrne and N. Halenko, 2018. Successful Spoken English: Findings from
Learner Corpora. Abingdon: Routledge.
This book brings together communicative competence and corpus linguistics in a compre-
hensive and inclusive description of oral exam interview data. It gives particular focus to
pragmatic competence and challenges the notion of native speaker sociopragmatic and
pragmalinguistic norms. Through empirical data, it shows how successful spoken English
can be performed in different ways. It also includes an interesting sub-study using an avatar
to build a speech act corpus. One of the important outputs of the book is a model for an
enhanced description of linguistic, strategic, discourse and pragmatic competence using
corpus data.

Plonsky, L. and J. Zhuang, 2019. A meta-analysis of second language pragmatics

instruction. In N. Taguchi (ed.), Routledge Handbook of SLA and Pragmatics. New York:
Routledge, pp. 287–307.
This chapter offers a summative view of the status of research on pragmatics instruction
across a range of variables so as to appraise the main focus of research in the field, the
effect sizes of quasi-experimental studies, and so on. Apart from offering an excellent
insight into the area as a whole, it also brings to light areas that need to be addressed and
methodological lacunae.

Zhang, G.Q. and P.G. Sabat, 2016. ‘Elastic “I think”: Stretching over L1 and L2.’ Applied
Linguistics, 37(3), 334–353.
This paper provides another way of looking at language use across native and non-native
speakers. Patterns of use of I think are described and viewed in terms of how they vary
across Chinese, Persian and American users of English, and this allows for the use of cer-
tain underlying pragmatic norms to interpret some of the variations in use. It moves away
from a binary native–non-native speaker view where the non-native language is char-
acterised with reference to under-, over- or incorrect use relative to the native speaker
baseline.
References

Adato, M., 2008. ‘Combining survey and ethnographic methods to improve evaluation of
conditional cash transfer programs.’ International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches,
2(2), 222–236.
Ädel, A. and R. Reppen, 2008. The challenges of different settings: An overview. In A. Ädel
and R. Reppen (eds), Corpora and Discourse: The Challenges of Different Settings.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 1–6.
Adolphs, S., 2008. Corpus and Context: Investigating Pragmatic Functions in Spoken
Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Adolphs, S. and R. Carter, 2013. Spoken Corpus Linguistics: From Monomodal to Multimodal.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Adolphs, S., P. Crawford, B. Brown, O. Sahota and R. Carter, 2004. ‘Applying corpus linguistics
in a health care context.’ International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 44–49.
Aijmer, K., 1996. Conversational Routines in English. London: Longman.
Aijmer, K., 2002. English Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Aijmer, K., 2013. Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Aijmer, K., 2015. Pragmatic markers. In K. Aijmer and C. Rühlemann (eds), Corpus
Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195–210.
Aijmer, K., 2018. Corpus pragmatics: From form to function. In A.H. Jucker, K.P. Schneider
and W. Bublitz (eds), Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 555–585.
Ajabshir, Z.F., 2019. ‘The effect of synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated
communication (CMC) on EFL learners’ pragmatic competence.’ Computers in Human
Behavior, 92, 169–177.
Alcón-Soler, E., 2005. ‘Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context?’
System, 33, 417–435.
Alcón-Soler, E., 2015. ‘Instruction and pragmatic change during study abroad email
communication.’ Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 34–45.
Amador-Moreno, C., K. McCafferty and E. Vaughan (eds), 2015. Pragmatic Markers in Irish
English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Andersen, G., 2001. Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation: A Relevance-Theoretic
Approach to the Language of Adolescents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Andersen, G., 2016. Using the corpus-driven method to chart discourse-pragmatic change.
In H. Pichler (ed.), Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change in English. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 21–40.
234 References

Andersen, G., 2018. Corpus construction. In A.H. Jucker, K.P. Schneider and W. Bublitz
(eds), Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 467–494.
Anderson, W. and J. Corbett, 2017. Exploring English with Online Corpora (2nd edn).
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Antaki, C., 2002. ‘“Lovely”: Turn-initial high-grade assessments in telephone closings.’
Discourse Studies, 4(1), 5–23.
Anthony, L., 2019. AntConc (Version 3.5.8). Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available
online atwww.laurenceanthony.net/software (accessed 9 May 2019).
Archer, D. and J. Culpeper, 2018. Corpus annotation. In A.H. Jucker, K.P. Schneider and W.
Bublitz (eds), Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 493–522.
Argaman, E., 2007. ‘With or without “it”: The role of empathetic deixis in mediating educational
change.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1591–1607.
Arndt, H. and R.W. Janney, 1987. InterGrammar. Towards an Integrative Model of Verbal,
Prosodic and Kinesic Choices in Speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Aston, G. and L. Burnard, 1998. The BNC Handbook: Exploring the British National Corpus
with SARA. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Atkinson, J.M., 1979. Sequencing and shared attentiveness to court proceedings. In G.
Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington,
pp. 257–286.
Atkinson, J.M. and P. Drew, 1979. Order in Court: the Organization of Verbal Interaction in
Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan.
Austin, J.L., 1962. How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Baker, P., 2006. Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., 2001. Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction
in pragmatics? In K. Rose and G. Kasper (eds), Pragmatics in Language Teaching.
Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 13–32.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Z. Dörnyei, 1998. ‘Do language learners recognise pragmatic
violations?: Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning.’ TESOL
Quarterly, 32(2), 233–259.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and R. Mahan-Taylor, 2003. Introduction to Teaching Pragmatics. Available
online at http://exchanges.state.gov/englishteaching/forum/archives/docs/03-41-
3-h.pdf (accessed 2 May 2019).
Bardovi-Harlig, K., S. Mossman and Y. Su, 2017. ‘The effect of corpus-based instruction on
pragmatic routines.’ Language Learning & Technology, 21(3), 76–103.
Barraja-Rohan, A.M., 2011. ‘Using conversation analysis in the second language classroom
to teach interactional competence.’ Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 479–507.
Barron, A., 2003. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Learning How to do Things with
Words in a Study Abroad Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Barron, A., 2005. Offering in Ireland and England. In A. Barron and K.P. Schneider (eds), The
Pragmatics of Irish English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 141–176.
Barron, A. (ed.), 2015. Special Issue: A variational pragmatic approach to regional variation
in language: Celebrating the work of Klaus P. Schneider. Multilingua, 34(4).
Barron, A., 2017. ‘The speech act of “offers” in Irish English.’ World Englishes, 36(2),
224–238.
Barron, A. and K.P. Schneider (eds), 2005. The Pragmatics of Irish English. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
 References 235

Basturkmen, H. and T.T.M. Nguyen, 2017. Teaching pragmatics. In A. Barron, G. Steen and Y.
Guo (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 563–574.
Bateson, G., 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry,
Evolution, and Epistemology. San Francisco, CA: Chandler Publishing Company.
Baynham, M., 1996. ‘Direct speech: What’s it doing in non-narrative discourse?’ Journal of
Pragmatics, 25, 61–81.
Beard, F.K., 2008. ‘Advertising and audience offense: The role of intentional humor.’ Journal
of Marketing Communications, 14(1), 1–17.
Bednarek, M., 2008. Emotion Talk across Corpora. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Beebe, L.M. and M.C. Cummings, 1996. Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire
data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S.M. Gass and N.
Joyce (eds), Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second
Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Beebe, L. and H. Zhang Waring, 2004. The linguistic encoding of pragmatic tone: Adverbials
as words that work. In D. Boxer and A. Cohen (eds), Studying Speaking to Inform
Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Beeching, K. and H. Woodfield (eds), 2015. Researching Sociopragmatic Variability:
Perspectives from Variational, Interlanguage and Contrastive Pragmatics. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Biber, D., 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., 1993. ‘Representativeness in corpus design.’ Literary and Linguistic Computing,
8(4), 243–257.
Biber, D., 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., 2006. University Language: A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Written
Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biber, D., 2009. ‘A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language: Multi-word patterns in
speech and writing.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 275–311.
Biber, D. and S. Conrad, 2009. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Biber, D. and B. Gray, 2013. Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking task types
on the TOEFL iBT test: A lexico-grammatical analysis (TOEFL iBT Research Report No.
19). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Available online at www.ets.org/Media/
Research/pdf/RR-13-04.pdf (accessed 2 May 2019).
Biber, D., S. Conrad and V. Cortes, 2004. ‘If you look at...: Lexical bundles in university
teaching and textbooks.’ Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405.
Biber, D., B. Gray and S. Staples, 2016. ‘Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity
across language exam task types and proficiency levels.’ Applied Linguistics, 37(5),
639–668.
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad and E. Finegan, 1999. The Longman Grammar
of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Biesenbach-Lucas, S., 2007. ‘Students writing emails to faculty: An examination of
e-politeness among native and non-native speakers of English.’ Language Learning and
Technology, 11(2), 59–81.
Billmyer, K. and M. Varghese, 2000. ‘Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability:
Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests.’ Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 517–552.
236 References

Binchy, J., 2005. Three forty two so please: Politeness for sale in Southern–Irish service
encounters. In A. Barron and K.P. Schneider (eds), The Pragmatics of Irish English. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 235–268.
Blum-Kulka, S., 1997. Dinner Talk: Cultural Patterns of Sociability and Socialisation in Family
Discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Blum-Kulka, S., J. House and G. Kasper (eds), 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests
and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bodman, J.W. and M. Eisenstein, 1988. ‘“May God increase your bounty”: The expression
of gratitude in English by native and non-native speakers.’ Cross Currents, 15, 1–21.
Botley, S. and T. McEnery, 2001. ‘Demonstratives in English: A corpus-based study.’ Journal
of English Linguistics, 29(1), 7–33.
Bou Franch, P. and N. Lorenzo-Dus, 2008. ‘Natural versus elicited data in cross-cultural
speech act realization: The case of requests in Peninsular Spanish and British English.’
Spanish in Context, 5, 246–277.
Boulton, A. and T. Cobb, 2017. ‘Corpus use in language learning: A meta-analysis.’ Language
Learning, 67(2), 348–393.
Bousfield, D., 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Boxer, D. and A. Cohen (eds), 2004. Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language
Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Brezina, V., 2018. Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Brezina, V., T. McEnery and S. Wattam, 2015. ‘Collocations in context: A new perspective
on collocation networks.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(2), 139–173.
Brinton, L., 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalisation and Discourse Functions.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, P. and S. Levinson, 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena.
In E. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–311.
Brown, P. and S. Levinson, 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brown, G. and G. Yule, 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bühler, K., 1934. Sprachtheorie. Jena: Fisher (reprinted Stuttgart: Fisher, 1965).
Burnard, L. 2008. Reference Guide to BNC Baby. Available online at www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
corpus/baby/manual.pdf (accessed 29 June 2017).
Burton, D., 1981. Analysing spoken discourse. In M. Coulthard and M. Montgomery (eds),
Studies in Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 61–81.
Button, G., 1987. Moving out of closings. In G. Button and J. Lee (eds), Talk and Social
Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 101–151.
Cameron, D., 2001. Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage.
Cameron, D. and D. Hills, 1990. ‘Listening in’: Negotiating relationships between listeners
and presenters on radio phone-in programmes. In G. McGregor and R. White (eds),
Reception and Response: Hearer Creativity and the Analysis of Spoken and Written Texts.
London: Routledge, pp. 53–68.
Canale, M. and M. Swain, 1980. ‘Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing.’ Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
 References 237

Carter, R., 2004. Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk. Abingdon: Routledge.
Carter, R. and M. McCarthy, 1997. Exploring Spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Carter, R. A. and M.J. McCarthy (1999) ‘The English get‑passive in spoken discourse:
Description and implications for an interpersonal grammar.’ English Language and Linguistics,
3(1), 41–58.
Carter, R. and M. McCarthy, 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide
to Spoken and Written Grammar and Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carter, R. and M. McCarthy, 2017. ‘Spoken Grammar: Where are we and where are we
going?’ Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 1–20.
Carter, R., M.J. McCarthy, G. Mark and A. O’Keeffe, 2011. English Grammar Today. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cekaite, A., 2017. ‘What makes a child a good language learner? Interactional competence, identity,
and immersion in a Swedish classroom.’ Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 45–61.
Channell, J., 1994. Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chen, C-F.E., 2001. ‘Making e-mail requests to professors: Taiwanese vs. American
students.’ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for
Applied Linguistics, St Louis, February. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
461 299.)
Chen, C-F.E., 2006. ‘The development of e-mail literacy: From writing to peers to writing to
authority figures.’ Language Learning & Technology, 10(2), 35–55.
Chen, M. and J. Flowerdew, 2018. ‘A critical review of research and practice in data-driven
learning (DDL) in the academic writing classroom.’ International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, 23(3), 335–369.
Chen, R., 1993. ‘Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies
between American English and Chinese speakers.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 20(1), 49–75.
Cheng, W. and M. Warren, 2003. ‘Indirectness, inexplicitness and vagueness made clearer.’
Pragmatics, 13(3), 381–400.
Cheng, W. and M. Warren, 2007. ‘Checking understanding: Comparing textbooks and a
corpus of spoken English in Hong Kong.’ Language Awareness, 16(3), 190–207.
Cheng, W. and A. O’Keeffe, 2015. Vagueness. In K. Aijmer and C. Rühlemann (eds), Corpus
Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 360–378.
Cheshire, J., 2007. ‘Discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that.’ Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 11(2), 155–193.
Cheshire, J., 2016. Epilogue: The future of discourse-pragmatic variation and change research.
In H. Pichler (ed.), Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change in English. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 252–266.
Clancy, B., 2005. You’re fat. You’ll eat them all. Politeness strategies in family discourse. In
K.P. Schneider and A. Barron (eds), The Pragmatics of Irish English. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, pp. 177–199.
Clancy, B., 2011. ‘Complementary perspectives on hedging behaviour in family discourse:
The analytical synergy of corpus linguistics and variational pragmatics.’ International
Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(3), 372–391.
Clancy, B., 2016. Investigating Intimate Discourse: Exploring the Spoken Interaction of
Families, Couples and Friends. Abingdon: Routledge.
 References 239

Cunningham, D.J. and N. Vyatkina, 2012. ‘Modifying oral requests in a foreign language:
Towards developing a formal register in the foreign language classroom.’ The Canadian
Modern Language Review, 68(4), 422–450.
Curry, N. and A. Chambers, 2017. ‘Questions in English and French research articles in
linguistics: A corpus-based contrastive analysis.’ Corpus Pragmatics, 1(4), 327–350.
Cutting, J. (ed.), 2007. Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dalton-Puffer, C. and T. Nikula, 2006. ‘Pragmatics of content-based instruction: Teacher and
student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms.’ Applied Linguistics, 27, 241–267.
Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., M. Sudhof, D. Jurafsky, J. Leskovec and C. Potts, 2013. A
computational approach to politeness with application to social factors. In Proceedings
of ACL 2013. Available online at www.mpi-sws.org/~cristian/Politeness.html (accessed
16 January 2017).
Davies, M., 2010. ‘The Corpus of Contemporary American English as the first reliable
monitor corpus of English.’ Literary and Linguistic Computing, 25(4), 447–464.
Demeter, G., 2007. ‘Role-plays as a data collection method for research on apology speech
acts.’ Simulation and Gaming, 38(1), 83–90.
Deutschmann, M., 2003. Apologising in British English (Skrifter från moderna språk 10).
Umeå: Institutionen för moderna språk, Umeå University.
Diani, G., 2004. The discourse functions of I don’t know in English conversation. In K.
Aijmer and A-B. Stenström (eds), Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 157–171.
Diemer, S., M-L. Brunner and S. Schmidt, 2016. ‘Compiling computer-mediated spoken
language corpora: Key issues and recommendations.’ International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, 21(3), 349–371.
Diessel, H., 1999. Demonstratives: Form, Function and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Dines, E., 1980. ‘Variation in discourse: “And stuff like that”.’ Language in Society, 9(1),
13–31.
Drew, P. and K. Chilton, 2000. Calling just to keep in touch: Regular and habitual telephone
calls as an environment for small talk. In J. Coupland (ed.), Small Talk. London: Longman,
pp. 157–182.
Dubois, S., 1993. ‘Extension particles, etc.’ Language Variation and Change, 4(2), 179–203.
Dunning T., 1993. ‘Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence.’
Computational Linguistics, 19(1), 61–74.
Durkheim, E., 1915. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. London: G. Allen and Unwin.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M., 2013. ‘Strategies, modification and perspective in native
speakers’ requests: A comparison of WDCT and naturally occurring requests.’ Journal
of Pragmatics, 53, 21–38.
Eelen, G., 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome.
ELAN How-to Guide, 2017. Available online at https://tla.mpi.nl/wp-content/uploads/
2017/01/How-to-pages_9.pdf (accessed 3 May 2019).
Ellis, N.C., 2015. Implicit and explicit learning: Their dynamic interface and complexity.
In P. Rebuschat (ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, pp. 3–23.
Ellis, R., 2016. ‘Focus on form: A critical review.’ Language Teaching Research, 20(3),
405–428.
240 References

Evison, J., 2013a. ‘A corpus linguistic analysis of turn-openings in spoken academic discourse:
Understanding discursive specialisation.’ English Profile Journal, 3(1), 1–24.
Evison, J., 2013b. ‘Turn openings in academic talk: Where goals and roles intersect.’ Classroom
Discourse, 4(1), 3–26.
Farr, F., B. Murphy and A. O’Keeffe, 2004. ‘The Limerick Corpus of Irish English: Design,
description and application.’ Teanga, 21, 5–30.
Fasold, R., 1990. The Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Félix-Brasdefer, J.C., 2009. ‘Pragmatic variation across Spanish(es): Requesting in Mexican,
Costa Rican and Dominican Spanish.’ Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(4), 473–515.
Félix-Brasdefer, J.C., 2010. Data collection methods in speech act performance: DCTs,
role plays and verbal reports. In E. Usó-Juán and A. Martínez-Flor (eds), Speech Act
Performance: Theoretical, Empirical, and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, pp. 41–56.
Félix-Brasdefer, J.C., 2013. Refusing in L2 Spanish: The effects of the context of learning
during a short-term study abroad program. In O. Martí Andándiz and P. Salazar-Campillo
(eds), Refusals in Instructional Contexts and Beyond. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 147–173.
Félix-Brasdefer, J.C., 2018. Role plays. In A.H. Jucker, K.P. Schneider and W. Bublitz (eds),
Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 305–331.
Fernando, C., 1996. Idioms and Idiomaticity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fillmore, C., 1997. Lectures on Deixis. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Finegan, E. and D. Biber, 1994. Register and social dialect variation: An integrated approach.
In D. Biber and E. Finegan (eds), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 315–347.
Flöck, I., 2016. Requests in American and British English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Flöck, I. and R. Geluykens, 2015. Speech acts in corpus pragmatics: A quantitative contrastive
study of directives in spontaneous and elicited discourse. Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics
and Pragmatics, 3, 7–37.
Fortanet, I., 2004. ‘The use of “we” in university lectures: Reference and function.’ English
for Specific Purposes, 23, 45–66.
Fox Tree, J. and J. Schrock, 2002. ‘Basic meanings of you know and I mean.’ Journal of
Pragmatics, 34, 727–747.
Fraser, B., 1975. Hedged performatives. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds), Syntax and
Semantics: Vol. 3 Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 187–210.
Fraser, B., 1990. ‘An approach to discourse markers.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 383–395.
Fraser, B., 1996. ‘Pragmatic markers.’ Pragmatics, 6(2), 167–190.
Fukada, A. and N. Asato, 2004. ‘Universal politeness theory: Application to the use of
Japanese honorifics.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1991–2002.
Fung, L. and R. Carter, 2007. ‘Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner
use in pedagogic settings.’ Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410–439.
Gablasova, D., 2014. ‘Learning and retaining specialized vocabulary from textbook reading:
Comparison of learning outcomes through L1 and L2.’ Modern Language Journal, 98(4),
976–991.
Gablasova, D., V. Brezina and T. McEnery, 2019. The Trinity Lancaster Corpus: Applications
in language teaching and materials development. In S. Götz and J. Mukherjee (eds),
Learner Corpora and Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 8–28.
238 References

Clancy, B., 2018. ‘Corpora in conflict: Investigating family conflict using a corpus approach.’
Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 6(2), 228–247.
Clancy, B. and M. McCarthy, 2015. Co-constructed turn-taking. In K. Aijmer and C. Rühlemann
(eds), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.
430–453.
Clancy, B. and A. O’Keeffe, 2015. Pragmatics. In D. Biber and R. Reppen (eds), The
Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 235–251.
Clancy, B. and E. Vaughan, 2012. It’s lunacy now: A corpus-based pragmatic analysis of the
use of now in contemporary Irish English. In B. Migge and M. Ní Chiosáin (eds), New
Perspectives on Irish English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 225–246.
Clark, B., 2018. Cognitive pragmatics: Relevance-theoretic methodology. In A.H. Jucker,
K.P. Schneider and W. Bublitz, (eds), Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,
pp. 185–215.
Clemen, G., 1997. The concept of hedging: Origins, approaches and definitions. In R.
Markkanen and H. Schröder (eds), Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis
of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 235–248.
Cohen, A.D., 2012. Research methods for describing variation in intercultural pragmatics for
cultures in contact and conflict. In J.C. Félix-Brasdefer and D.A. Koike (eds), Pragmatic
Variation in First and Second Language Contexts: Methodological Issues. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins, pp. 17–48.
Cook, G., 1994. Discourse and Literature: The Interplay of Form and Mind. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Coulmas, F., 1979. ‘On the sociolinguistic relevance of routine formulae.’ Journal of Pragmatics,
3, 239–266.
Cowie, A.P., 1988. Stable and creative aspects of vocabulary use. In R. Carter and M.
McCarthy (eds), Vocabulary and Language Teaching. London: Longman, pp. 126–139.
Crystal, D., 1969. Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Culpeper, J., 1996. ‘Towards an anatomy of impoliteness.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349–367.
Culpeper, J., 2005. ‘Impoliteness and The Weakest Link.’ Journal of Politeness Research,
1(1), 35–72.
Culpeper, J., 2011a. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Culpeper, J., 2011b. ‘It’s not what you said, it’s how you said it!’: Prosody and impoliteness.
In The Linguistic Politeness Research Group (eds), Discursive Approaches to Politeness.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 57–84.
Culpeper, J. and M. Haugh, 2014. Pragmatics and the English Language. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Culpeper, J., D. Bousfield and A. Wichmann, 2003. ‘Impoliteness revisited: With special
reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1545–1579.
Culpeper, J., M. Haugh and D. Kádár (eds), 2017. The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)
politeness. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cunningham, D.J., 2019. L2 pragmatics learning in computer-mediated communication.
In N. Taguchi (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and
Pragmatics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 372–386.
 References 241

Gabrielatos, C., 2018. Keyness analysis: Nature, metrics and techniques. In C. Taylor and A.
Marchi (eds), Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical Review. Abingdon: Routledge,
pp. 225–258.
Garcia, P., 2007. Pragmatics in academic contexts: A spoken corpus study. In M.C. Campoy and
M.J. Luzón (eds), Spoken Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 97–128.
Garcia McAllister, P., 2015. Speech acts: A synchronic perspective. In K. Aijmer and C.
Rühlemann (eds), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 29–51.
Godard, D., 1977. ‘Same setting, different norms: Phone call beginnings in France and the
United States.’ Language in Society, 6, 209–219.
Goffman, E., 1956. ‘The nature of deference and demeanour.’ American Anthropologist, 58,
473–502.
Goffman, E., 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
Goffman, E., 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York: Random
House.
Goffman, E., 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Golato, A., 2003. ‘Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings
of naturally occurring talk.’ Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 90–121.
Grainger, K., Z. Kerkam, F. Mansor and S. Mills, 2015. ‘Offering and hospitality in Arabic and
English.’ Journal of Politeness Research, 11(1), 41–70.
Gray, B. and D. Biber, 2015. Phraseology. In D. Biber and R. Reppen (eds), The Cambridge
Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.
125–145.
Greaves, C. and M. Warren, 2010. What can a corpus tell us about multi-word units? In
A. O’Keeffe and M. McCarthy (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics.
Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 212–226.
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.
Grice, H.P., 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gries, S. Th., 2015. Quantitative designs and statistical techniques. In D. Biber and R. Reppen
(eds), The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 50–71.
Grundy, P., 2008. Doing Pragmatics (3rd edn). London: Hodder Education.
Gumperz, J., 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halenko, N., 2013. Using computer animation to assess and improve spoken language
skills. In ICT for Language Learning Conference Proceedings. Florence, Italy, 15–16
November 2012, pp. 286–290.
Halliday, M.A.K., 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language
and Meaning. London: Hodder Arnold.
Halliday, M. and R. Hasan, 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halmari, H., 1993. ‘Intercultural business telephone conversations: A case of Finns vs.
Anglo-Americans.’ Applied Linguistics, 14(4), 408–430.
Hammond, J. and B. Derewianka, 2001. Genre. In R. Carter and D. Nunan (eds), The
Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 186–193.
242 References

Handford, M., 2014. ‘Cultural identities in international, interorganisational meetings: A corpus-

informed discourse analysis of indexical we.’ Language and Intercultural Communication,
14(1), 41–58.
Hanks, W., 1992. The indexical ground of deictic reference. In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin
(eds), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 43–76.
Hartford, B.S. and K. Bardovi-Harlig, 1992. Experimental and observational data in the
study of interlanguage pragmatics. In L.F. Bouton and Y. Kachru (eds), Pragmatics and
Language Learning, Vol. 3. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English
as an International Language, pp. 33–52.
Hartford, B.S. and K. Bardovi-Harlig, 1996. ‘“At your earliest convenience:” A study of written
student requests to faculty.’ Pragmatics and Language Learning, 7, 55–69.
Hasan, R., 1985. The structure of a text. In M.A.K. Halliday and R. Hasan (eds), Language,
Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 52–69.
Hasan, R., 1999. Speaking with reference to context. In M. Ghadessy (ed.), Text and Context
in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 219–328.
Haselow, A., 2017. Spontaneous Spoken English: An Integrated Approach to the Emergent
Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Healy, M. and K. Onderdonk-Horan, 2012. Looking at language in hotel management
education. In F. Farr and M. Moriarty (eds), Learning and Teaching: Irish Research
Perspectives. Berlin: Peter Lang, pp. 141–165.
Heuboeck, A., J. Holmes and H. Nesi, 2010. The BAWE Corpus Manual. Available online at
www.reading.ac.uk/internal/appling/bawe/BAWE.documentation.pdf (accessed 16
April 2019).
Hinkel, E., 1996. ‘When in Rome: Evaluations of L2 pragmalinguistic behaviors.’ Journal of
Pragmatics, 26(1), 51–70.
Hinkel, E., 1997. ‘Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 27(3),
360–386.
Hinkel, E., 2004. Teaching Academic ESL Writing: Practical Techniques in Vocabulary and
Grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Holmes, J., 1986. ‘Functions of you know in women’s and men’s speech.’ Language in
Society, 15, 1–22.
Holmes, J., 1993. ‘New Zealand women are good to talk to: An analysis of politeness
strategies in interaction.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 91–116.
Holtgraves, T., 1997. ‘Yes, but…: Positive politeness in conversation arguments.’ Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 16(2), 222–239.
Hopper, R., 1989. ‘Sequential ambiguity in telephone openings: “What are you doin’”.’
Communication Monographs, 56(3), 240–252.
Hopper, R., 1992. Telephone Conversation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hopper, R. and K. Drummond, 1992. ‘Accomplishing interpersonal relationship: The telephone
openings of strangers and intimates.’ Western Journal of Communication (includes
Communication Reports), 56(3), 185–199.
 References 243

Hopper, R., N. Doany, M. Johnson and K. Drummond, 1991. ‘Universals and particulars in
telephone openings.’ Research on Language and Social Interaction, 24, 369–387.
Houck, N. R. and D. H. Tatsuki (eds), 2011. Pragmatics: Teaching Natural Conversation.
Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), Inc.
House, J., 1988. ‘Oh excuse me please…’: Apologising in a foreign language. In B. Kettermann, P.
Bierbaumer, A. Fill and A. Karpf (eds), Englisch als Zweitsprache. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 303–327.
Huang, Y., 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hunston, S., 2002. Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hutchby, I., 1991. The organisation of talk on talk radio. In P. Scannell (ed.), Broadcast Talk.
London: Sage, pp. 119–137.
Hutchby, I., 1996a. Confrontation Talk – Arguments, Asymmetries, and Power on Talk Radio.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hutchby, I., 1996b. ‘Power in discourse: The case of arguments on a British talk radio show.’
Discourse and Society, 7(4), 481–497.
Hutchby, I., 1999. ‘Frame attunement and footing in the organisation of talk radio openings.’
Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(1), 41–63.
Hyland, K., 1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K., 1999a. ‘Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary
knowledge.’ Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341–367.
Hyland, K., 1999b. Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C.N. Candlin and
K. Hyland (eds), Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices. London: Longman, pp. 99–121.
Hyland, K., 2018. The Essential Hyland: Studies in Applied Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury
Academic.
Hymes, D., 1972a. On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds),
Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 269–293.
Hymes, D., 1972b. Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. Gumperz
and D. Hymes (eds), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication.
Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 35–71.
Ide, S., 1989. ‘Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of
linguistic politeness.’ Multilingua, 8(2/3), 223–248.
Ishihara, N. and A. Cohen, 2010. Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and
Culture Meet. London: Longman.
Jefferson, G., 1973. ‘A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation.’ Semiotica, 9(1), 47–96.
Jefferson, G., 1990. List-construction as a task and a resource. In G. Psathas (ed.), Interaction
Competence. Washington, DC: University Press of America, pp. 63–92.
Jeon, E-H. and T. Kaya, 2006. Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic
development. In N. John and L. Ortega (eds), Synthesizing Research on Language
Learning and Teaching. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 165–211.
Jesperson, O., 1965. The Philosophy of Grammar. New York: Norton.
Jones, P., 1995. Philosophical and theoretical issues in the study of deixis: A critique of the
standard account. In K. Green (ed.), New Essays in Deixis. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 27–48.
Jones, C., S. Byrne and N. Halenko, 2018. Successful Spoken English: Findings from Learner
Corpora. Abingdon: Routledge.
244 References

Jonsson, E., 2015. Conversational Writing: A Multidimensional Study of Synchronous and

Supersynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Jucker, A.H., 2012. Pragmatics in the history of linguistic thought. In A. Keith and K.M.
Jaszczolt (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 495–512.
Jucker, A.H., 2018. Data in pragmatic research. In A.H. Jucker, K.P. Schneider and W. Bublitz
(eds), Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 3–36.
Jucker, A.H. and I. Taavitsainen (eds), 2008a. Speech Acts in the History of English.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jucker, A.H. and I. Taavitsainen, 2008b. Apologies in the history of English. In A.H. Jucker
and I. Taavitsainen (eds), Speech Acts in the History of English. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, pp. 229–244.
Jucker, A.H. and I. Taavitsainen, 2013. English Historical Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Jucker, A.H. and I. Taavitsainen, 2014. Complimenting in the history of American English: A
metacommunicative expression analysis. In I. Taavitsainen, A.H. Jucker and J. Tuominen
(eds), Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 257–276.
Jucker, A.H., K.P. Schneider and W. Bublitz (eds), 2018. Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin:
Mouton de Guyter.
Kallen J. and J. Kirk, 2008. ICE-Ireland: A User’s Guide. Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona.
Kallen, J. and J. Kirk, 2012. SPICE-Ireland: A User’s Guide. Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona.
Kanagy, R., 1999. ‘Interactional routines as a mechanism for L2 acquisition and socialisation
in an immersion context.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1467–1492.
Kasper, G., 1990. ‘Linguistic politeness.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 193–218.
Kasper, G., 2000. Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally-
Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk Across Cultures. London: Continuum, pp.
316–341.
Kasper, G., 2008. Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.),
Culturally-Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory (2nd edn). London:
Continuum, pp. 279–303.
Kasper, G. and M. Dahl, 1991. Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawaii Press.
Kasper, G. and K. Rose, 1999. ‘Pragmatics and SLA.’ Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
19, 81–104.
Kasper, G. and C. Roever, 2005. Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel
(ed.), Handbook of Research into Second Language Teaching and Learning. Abingdon:
Routledge, pp. 317–334.
Kendon, A., 1986. ‘Some reasons for studying gesture.’ Semiotica, 62(1–2), 3–28.
Kilgarriff, A., P. Rychlý, P. Smrž and D. Tugwell, 2004. The Sketch Engine. In G. Williams
and S. Vessier (eds), Proceedings of the 11th EURALEX International Congress. Lorient,
France: Université de Bretagne-Sud, pp. 105–116.
Kirk, J.M., 2016. ‘The pragmatic annotation scheme of the SPICE-Ireland Corpus.’ International
Journal of Pragmatics, 21(3), 299–322.
Kirk, J.M. and G. Andersen, 2016. ‘Compilation, transcription, markup and annotation of
spoken corpora.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 21(3), 291–298.
 References 245

Kjellmer, G., 2003. ‘Hesitation: In defence of ER and ERM.’ English Studies, 84, 170–198.
Knight, D., D. Evans, R. Carter and S. Adolphs, 2009. ‘Redrafting corpus development
methodologies: Blueprints for 3rd generation “multimodal, multimedia’’ corpora.’ Corpora,
4(1), 1–32.
Kohnen, T., 2008. Tracing directives through text and time: Towards a methodology of a
corpus-based diachronic speech-act analysis. In A.H. Jucker and I. Taavitsainen (eds),
Speech Acts in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 295–310.
Kohnen, T., 2015. Speech acts: A diachronic perspective. In K. Aijmer and C. Rühlemann
(eds), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.
52–83.
Kok, K., 2017. ‘Functional and temporal relations between spoken and gestured components
of language: A corpus-based inquiry.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,
20(3), 1–26.
Kotthoff, H., 1993. ‘Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of
preference structures.’ Language in Society, 22(2), 193–216.
Labov, W., 1972. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lakoff, G., 1972. ‘Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts.’
Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 458–508.
Lakoff, R., 1973. The logic of politeness; or, minding your p’s and q’s. In Papers from the 9th
Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics
Society, pp. 292–305.
Lakoff, R., 1974. Remarks on this and that. In M. Lagaly, R. Fox and A. Brook (eds), Papers
from the 10th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago
Linguistic Society, pp. 345–356.
Lazzaro-Salazar, M., 2013. Investigating Nurses’ Professional Identity Construction in
Two Health Settings in New Zealand. Unpublished PhD thesis, Victoria University of
Wellington.
LeBaron, C.D. and S.E. Jones, 2002. ‘Closing up closings: Showing the relevance of the
social and material surround to the completion of interaction.’ Journal of Communication,
52(3), 542–565.
Lee, H., M. Warschauer and J.H. Lee, 2018. ‘The effects of corpus use on second language
vocabulary learning: A multilevel meta-analysis.’ Applied Linguistics. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy012.
Leech, G., 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leech, G., 1999. The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English
conversation. In H. Hasselgård and S. Oksefjell (eds), Out of Corpora: Studies in Honour
of Stig Johansson. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 107–120.
Leech, G., P. Grayson and A. Wilson, 2001. Companion Website for: Word Frequencies in
Written and Spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus. Available online at
http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/bncfreq/lists/2_3_writtenspoken.txt (accessed 7 May 2019).
Levinson, S., 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S., 2004. Deixis. In L. Horn and G. Ward (eds), The Handbook of Pragmatics.
Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 97–121.
Li, S., 2012. ‘The effect of input-based practice on pragmatic development in L2 Chinese.’
Language Learning, 62, 403–438.
246 References

Liang, G. and J. Han, 2005. ‘A contrastive study on disagreement strategies for politeness
between American English and Mandarin Chinese.’ The Asian EFL Journal, 7(1), 1–12.
Lippi-Green, R., 1997. English with an Accent: Language, Ideology and Discrimination in the
United States (1st edn). Abingdon: Routledge.
Lippi-Green, R., 2011. English with an Accent: Language, Ideology and Discrimination in the
United States (2nd edn). Abingdon: Routledge.
Locher, M., 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Locher, M., 2006. ‘Polite behaviour within relational work: The discursive approach to
politeness.’ Multilingua, 25, 249–267.
Locher, M. and R. Watts, 2005. ‘Politeness theory and relational work.’ Journal of Politeness
Research, 1(1), 9–33.
Louw, B. (1993) Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of
semantic prosodies. In M. Baker and E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds), Text and Technology. In
Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 157–176.
Love, R., C. Dembry, A. Hardoe, V. Brezina and T. McEnery, 2017. ‘The Spoken BNC2014:
Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations.’ International Journal
of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 319–344.
Lücking, A., K. Bergmann, F. Hahn, S. Kopp and H. Rieser, 2013. ‘Data-based analysis of
speech and gesture: The Bielefeld Speech and Gesture Alignment corpus (SaGA) and
its applications.’ Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces, 7(1–2), 5–18.
Lutzky, U. and A. Kehoe, 2017a. ‘“I apologise for my poor blogging”: Searching for apologies
in the Birmingham Blog Corpus.’ Corpus Pragmatics, 1, 37–56.
Lutzky, U. and A. Kehoe, 2017b. ‘“Oops, I didn’t mean to be so flippant”. A corpus pragmatic
analysis of apologies in blog data.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 116, 27–36.
Lyons, J., 1977. Semantics Vols. 1 & 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mahlberg, M. and D. McIntyre, 2011. ‘A case for corpus stylistics: Ian Fleming’s Casino
Royale.’ English Text Construction, 4(2), 204–227.
Maíz-Arévalo, C., 2015. DCTs versus naturally-occurring data in the realization of disagreement
by non-native speakers of English. In S. Gesauto, F. Bianchi and W. Cheng (eds), Teaching,
Learning and Investigating Pragmatics: Principles, Methods and Practices. Newcastle:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 185–205.
Markkanen, R. and H. Schröder, 1997. Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse
analysis. In R. Markkanen and H. Schröder (eds), Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to
the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,
pp. 3–18.
Marmaridou, S., 2000. Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Márquez Reiter, R., 2000. Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A Contrastive Study
of Requests and Apologies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Marra, M. and M. Lazzaro-Salazar, 2018. Ethnographic methods in pragmatics. In A.H.
Jucker, K.P. Schneider and W. Bublitz (eds), Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, pp. 343–366.
Martinez, R. and N. Schmitt, 2012. ‘A phrasal expressions list.’ Applied Linguistics, 33(3),
299–320.
Matsumoto, Y., 1988. ‘Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in
Japanese.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403–426.
 References 247

Maynard, D.W., 2003. Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and
Clinical Settings. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Maynard, D.W. and J. Heritage, 2005. ‘Conversation analysis, doctor–patient interaction and
medical communication.’ Medical Education, 39, 428–435.
McCafferty, K. and C. Amador-Moreno, 2012. A corpus of Irish English correspondence: A
tool for studying the history and evolution of Irish English. In B. Migge and M. Ní Chiosáin
(eds), New Perspectives on Irish English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 265–287.
McCarthy, M., 1998. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McCarthy, M., 2002. Good listenership made plain: British and American non-minimal
response tokens in everyday conversation. In R. Reppen, S. Fitzmaurice and D. Biber (eds),
Using Corpora to Explore Linguistics Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 49–71.
McCarthy, M., 2003. ‘Talking back: “small” interactional response tokens in everyday
conversation.’ Research on Language in Social Interaction, 36(1), 33–63.
McCarthy, M., 2015. ‘’Tis mad, yeah’: Turn openers in Irish and British English. In C. Amador-
Moreno, K. McCafferty and E. Vaughan (eds), Pragmatic Markers in Irish English. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins, pp. 156–175.
McCarthy, M. and B. Clancy, 2019. From language as system to language as discourse.
In S. Walsh and S. Mann (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teacher
Education. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 201–215.
McDonough, S.H., 1986. Psychology in Foreign Language Teaching. London: Allen and Unwin.
McEnery, T. and A. Hardie, 2012. Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mey, J.L., 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Milà-Garcia, A., 2018. ‘Pragmatic annotation for a multilayered analysis of speech acts: A
methodological proposal.’ Corpus Pragmatics, 2(3), 265–287.
Mitchell, A.G., 1957. Spoken English. London: Macmillan.
Moon, R., 1994. The analysis of fixed expressions in text. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in
Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 117–135.
Moon, R., 1998. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-based Approach. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Morgan, J.L., 1978. Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In P. Cole (ed.), Syntax
and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 261–280.
Morollón Martí, N. and S.S. Fernández, 2016. ‘Telecollaboration and sociopragmatic
awareness in the foreign language classroom.’ Innovation in Language Learning and
Teaching, 10(1), 34–48.
Müller, S., 2005. Discourse Markers in Native and Non-Native English Discourse. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Musgrave, S., A. Schalley and M. Haugh, 2014. The use of ontologies as a tool for aggregating
spoken corpora. In Ş. Ruhi, M. Haugh, T. Schmidt and K. Wörner (eds), Best Practices for
Spoken Corpora in Linguistic Research. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 225–248.
Nattinger, J.R. and J. DeCarrico, 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Neiderhiser, J.A., P. Kelley, K.M. Kennedy, J.M. Swales and C. Vergaro, 2016. ‘“Notice the
similarities between the two sets …”: Imperative usage in a corpus of upper-level student
papers.’ Applied Linguistics, (37)2, 198–218.
248 References

Nelson, M., 2010. Building a written corpus: What are the basics? In A. O’Keeffe and M.
McCarthy (eds), Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.
53–65.
Nesi, H. and P. Thompson, 2006. The British Academic Spoken English Corpus Manual. Available
online at https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/al/research/collections/base/history/base_
manual.pdf (accessed 16 April 2019).
Nguyen, M., 2011. ‘Learning to communicate in a globalized world: To what extent do school
textbooks facilitate the development of intercultural pragmatic competence?’ RELC
Journal, 42, 17–30.
Nikula, T., 2008. Learning pragmatics in content-based classrooms. In E. Alcón-Soler and
A. Martínez- Flor (eds), Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching
and Testing. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 94–113.
Nikula, T., 2012. On the role of peer discussions in the learning of subject-specific language
use in CLIL. In E. Soler and M. Safont-Jordà (eds), Discourse and Language Learning
across L2 Instructional Settings. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 133–153.
Ochs, E., 1996. Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. Gumperz and S. Levinson
(eds), Rethinking Linguistics Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.
407–437.
Ogiermann, E., 2018. Discourse completion tasks. In A.H. Jucker, K.P. Schneider and W.
Bublitz (eds), Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 229–256.
Ohta, A., 1997. The development of pragmatic competence in learner–learner classroom
interaction. In L. Bouton (ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 8. University
of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language, pp.
223–242.
Ohta, A., 2001. Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning Japanese.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
O’Donnell, M.B. and U. Römer, 2012. ‘From student hard drive to web corpus (part 2): The
annotation and online distribution of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers
(MICUSP).’ Corpora, 7(1), 1–18.
O’Keeffe, A., 2006. Investigating Media Discourse. Abingdon: Routledge.
O’Keeffe, A., 2012. Corpora and media studies. In K. Hyland, M.H. Chau and M. Handford
(eds), Corpus Applications in Applied Linguistics. London: Continuum, pp. 117–131.
O’Keeffe, A., 2018. Corpus based function-to-form approaches. In A.H. Jucker, K.P.
Schneider and W. Bublitz (eds), Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.
587–618.
O’Keeffe, A. and S. Adolphs, 2008. Response tokens in British and Irish discourse: Corpus,
context and variational pragmatics. In K.P. Schneider and A. Barron (eds), Variational
Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, pp. 69–98.
O’Keeffe, A. and M.J. McCarthy (eds), 2010. The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics.
Abingdon: Routledge.
O’Keeffe, A., B. Clancy and S. Adolphs, 2011. Introducing Pragmatics in Use (1st edn).
Abingdon: Routledge.
O’Keeffe, A., M. McCarthy and R. Carter, 2007. From Corpus to Classroom: Language Use
and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 References 249

O’Keeffe, A. and G. Mark, 2017. ‘The English Grammar Profile of learner competence:
Methodology and key findings.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(4), 457–489.
Östman, J-O., 1995. Pragmatic particles twenty years after. In B. Wårvik, S-K. Tanskanen
and R. Hiltunen (eds), Organisation in Discourse. Turku: University of Turku, pp. 95–108.
Overstreet, M., 1999. Whales, Candlelight and Stuff Like That: General Extenders in English.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Overstreet, M. and G. Yule, 1997a. ‘Locally contingent categorisation in English.’ Discourse
Processes, 23, 83–97.
Overstreet, M. and G. Yule, 1997b. ‘On being inexplicit and stuff in contemporary American
English.’ Journal of English Linguistics, 25, 250–258.
Paquot, M. and L. Plonsky, 2017. ‘Quantitative research methods and study quality in learner
corpus research.’ International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 3, 61–94.
Parvaresh, V., 2018. ‘”We are going to do a lot of things for college tuition”: Vague language
in the 2016 U.S. Presidential debates.’ Corpus Pragmatics, 2, 167–192.
Parvaresh, V., M. Tavanger, A.E. Rasekh and D. Izadi, 2012. ‘About his friend, how good
she is, and this and that: General extenders in native Persian and non-native English
discourse.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 261–279.
Pérez Vidal, C. and R.L. Shively, 2019. L2 pragmatic development in Study Abroad settings.
In N. Taguchi (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and
Pragmatics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 355–371.
Peters, P. and D. Wong, 2015. Turn management and backchannels. In K. Aijmer and C.
Rühlemann (eds), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 408–429.
Phillips, M., 1989. Lexical Structure of Text. Discourse Analysis. English Language Research,
University of Birmingham.
Placencia, M.E., 2008. Requests in corner shop transactions in Ecuadorian Andean and
Coastal Spanish. In K.P. Schneider and A. Barron (eds), Variational Pragmatics: A
Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
pp. 307–332.
Placencia, M.E. and C. García (eds), 2007. Research on Politeness in the Spanish-Speaking
World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Plester, B., 2015. The Complexity of Workplace Humour: Laughter, Jokers and the Dark Side
of Humour. London: Springer.
Plevoets, K., D. Speelman and D. Geeraerts, 2008. The distribution of T/V pronouns in
Netherlandic and Belgian Dutch. In K.P. Schneider and A. Barron (eds), Variational
Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, pp. 181–210.
Plonsky, L. and J. Zhuang, 2019. A meta-analysis of L2 pragmatic instruction. In N. Taguchi
(ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics.
Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 287–307.
Ren, W. and Z. Han, 2016. ‘The representation of pragmatic knowledge in recent ELT
textbooks.’ ELT Journal, 70(4), 424–434.
Reppen, R., 2010. Building a corpus: What are the key considerations? In A. O’Keeffe and M.
McCarthy (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge,
pp. 31–37.
250 References

Reppen, R. and N. Ide, 2004. ‘The American National Corpus: Overall goals and first release.’
Journal of English Linguistics, 32(2), 105–113.
Römer, U. and M.B. O’Donnell, 2011. ‘From student hard drive to web corpus (part 1): The
design, compilation and genre classification of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level
Student Papers (MICUSP).’ Corpora, 6(2), 159–177.
Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), 2008. Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics: A Mutualistic Entente.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rose, K. (1994) ‘On the validity of discourse completion tests in non-western contexts.’
Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 1–14.
Rose, K., 2001. ‘Compliments and compliment responses in film: Implications for pragmatics
research and language teaching.’ International Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 309–326.
Rühlemann, C., 2007. Conversation in Context: A Corpus-Driven Approach. London: Continuum.
Rühlemann, C., 2010. What can a corpus tell us about pragmatics? In A. O’Keeffe and M.
McCarthy (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics (1st edn). Abingdon:
Routledge, pp. 288–301.
Rühlemann, C., 2019. Corpus Linguistics for Pragmatics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Rühlemann, C., forthcoming. What can a corpus tell us about pragmatics? In A. O’Keeffe and
M. McCarthy (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics (2nd edn). Abingdon:
Routledge.
Rühlemann, C. and K. Aijmer, 2015. Corpus pragmatics: Laying the foundations. In K. Aijmer
and C. Rühlemann (eds), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 1–26.
Rühlemann, C. and B. Clancy, 2018. Corpus linguistics and pragmatics. In N. Norrick and
C. Ilie (eds), Pragmatics and its Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 241–266.
Rühlemann, C. and S. Th. Gries, 2015. ‘Turn order and turn distribution in multi-party storytelling.’
Journal of Pragmatics, 87, 171–191.
Rühlemann, C. and M.B. O’Donnell, 2012. ‘Introducing a corpus of conversational narratives:
Construction and annotation of the Narrative Corpus.’ Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic
Theory, 8(2), 313–350.
Rühlemann, C. and M.B. O’Donnell, 2015. Deixis. In K. Aijmer and C. Rühlemann (eds),
Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 331–359.
Sacks, H., 1992. Harvey Sacks: Lectures on Conversation, Vols 1–2 (ed. G. Jefferson). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Sacks H., E. Schegloff and G. Jefferson, 1974. ‘A simplest systematics for the organisation
of turn-taking for conversation.’ Language, 50(4), 696–735.
Sadock, J.M., 1974. Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.
Sasaki, M., 1998. ‘Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A comparison of
production questionnaires and role plays.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 457–484.
Sauro, S., 2013. The cyber language exchange: Cross-national computer-mediated interaction.
In A. Mackey and K. McDonough (eds), New Perspectives in Classroom Interaction in
Second Language Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 129–146.
Schauer, G. and S. Adolphs, 2006. ‘Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data:
Vocabulary, formulaic sequences and pedagogy.’ System, 34, 119–134.
Schegloff, E., 1968. ‘Sequencing in conversational openings.’ The American Anthropologist,
70(6), 1075–1095.
 References 251

Schegloff, E., 1986. ‘The routine as achievement.’ Human Studies, 9, 111–152.

Schegloff, E., 2000. ‘Overlapping talk and the organisation of turn taking for conversation.’
Language in Society, 29(1), 1–63.
Schegloff, E. and H. Sacks, 1973. ‘Opening up closings.’ Semiotica, 7, 289–327.
Schegloff, E., G. Jefferson and H. Sacks, 1977. ‘The preference for self-correction in the
organization of repair in conversation.’ Language, 53, 361–382.
Schiffrin, D., 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schneider, K.P., 2007. ‘Genre matters: Textual and contextual constraints on contemporary
English speech behaviour.’ Anglia, 125(1), 59–83.
Schneider, K.P., 2018. Methods and ethics of data collection. In A.H. Jucker, K.P. Schneider
and W. Bublitz (eds), Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 37–93.
Schneider, K.P. and A. Barron (eds), 2008a. Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional
Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schneider, K.P. and A. Barron, 2008b. Where pragmatics and dialectology meet: Introducing
variational pragmatics. In K.P. Schneider and A. Barron (eds), Variational Pragmatics: A Focus
on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–31.
Scott, M., 2017. WordSmith Tools Version 7.0. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.
Searle, J., 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Searle, J., 1975. Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics,
Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59–82.
Searle, J., 1976. ‘The classification of illocutionary acts.’ Language in Society, 5, 1–24.
Seedhouse, P., 2005. The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A
Conversation Analysis Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sifianou, M., 1989. ‘On the telephone again. Differences in telephone behaviour: England
versus Greece.’ Language and Society, 18(4), 527–544.
Sifianou, M. and G-C. Blitvich, 2017. (Im)politeness and cultural variation. In J. Culpeper,
M. Haugh and D. Kádár, (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 571–600.
Simpson-Vlach, R. and S. Leicher, 2006. The MICASE Handbook: A Resource for Users of
the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan University
Press.
Sinclair, J. (1987) Collocation: A progress report. In R. Steele and T. Threadgold (eds),
Language Topics: An International Collection of Papers by Colleagues, Students and
Admirers of Professor Michael Halliday to Honour him on his Retirement, Vol. II.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 319–331.
Sinclair, J. (1991) Corpus, Concordance and Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sinclair, J.M., 1996. ‘The search for the units of meaning.’ Textus, 9(1), 75–106.
Sinclair, J.M., 2003. Reading Concordances. London: Longman.
Sinclair, J.M., 2004. Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. Abingdon: Routledge.
Sinclair, J.M. and M. Coulthard, 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Face, (im)politeness, and rapport. In H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally
Speaking: Culture, Communication, and Politeness Theory. London: Continuum, pp. 11–47.
252 References

Staples, S. and J. Fernández, 2019. Corpus linguistics approaches to L2 Pragmatics

Research. In N. Taguchi (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition
and Pragmatics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 241–254.
Staples, S., J. Egbert, D. Biber and A. McClair, 2013. ‘Formulaic sequences and EAP writing
development: Lexical bundles in the TOEFL iBT writing section.’ Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 12, 214–225.
Stiles, W.B., 1992. Describing Talk: A Taxonomy of Verbal Response Modes. London: Sage.
Strauss, S., 2002. ‘This, that and it in spoken American English: A demonstrative system of
gradient focus.’ Language Sciences, 24, 131–152.
Stubbs, M. (1995) Corpus evidence for norms of lexical collocation. In G. Cook and B.
Seidlhofer (eds), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Studies in Honour of H.G.
Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 245–256.
Stubbe, M. and J. Holmes, 1995. ‘You know, eh and other “exasperating expressions”: An
analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of
New Zealand English.’ Language and Communication, 15(1), 63–88.
Taavitsainen, I. and A.H. Jucker, 2008. ‘Methinks you seem more beautiful than ever’:
Compliments and gender in the history of English. In A.H. Jucker and I. Taavitsainen
(eds), Speech Acts in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 195–228.
Taavitsainen, I. and A.H. Jucker, 2015. ‘Twenty years of historical pragmatics: Origins,
developments and changing thought styles.’ Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 16(1), 1–24.
Tagliamonte S. and D. Denis, 2010. ‘The stuff of change: General extenders in Toronto,
Canada.’ Journal of English Linguistics, 38(4), 335–368.
Taguchi, N., 2013. Teaching pragmatics. In C.A. Chapelle (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied
Linguistics, Vol. IX. Oxford: Wiley, pp. 5643–5650.
Taguchi, N., 2019. Second language acquisition and pragmatics: An overview. In N. Taguchi
(ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics. Abingdon:
Routledge, pp. 1–14.
Takeyama, Y., 2019. Pragmatics in a language classroom. In N. Taguchi (ed.), The Routledge
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.
400–412.
Takimoto, M., 2006. ‘The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic
proficiency.’ Language Teaching Research, 10, 393–417.
Tanck, S., 2002. ‘Speech acts sets of refusal and complaints: A comparison of native and
non-native English speakers’ production.’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13,
65–81.
Tang, X., 2019. ‘The effects of task modality on L2 Chinese learners’ pragmatic development:
Computer-mediated written chat vs. face-to- face oral chat.’ System, 80, 49–59.
Tannen, D., 2007. Power manoeuvres and connection manoeuvres in family interaction. In
D. Tannen, S. Kendall and C. Gordon (eds), Family Talk: Discourse and Identity in four
American Families. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 27–48.
Tao, H., 2003. Turn initiators in spoken English: A corpus-based approach to interaction and
grammar. In P. Leistyna and C. Meyer (eds), Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and
Language Use. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 187–208.
Terkourafi, M., 2011. ‘From politeness1 to politeness2: Tracking norms of im/politeness
across time and space.’ Journal of Politeness Research, 7, 159–185.
 References 253

Thomas, J., 1983. ‘Cross-cultural pragmatic failure.’ Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.
Thompson, P., 2010. Building a specialised audio-visual corpus. In A. O’Keeffe and M.
McCarthy (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge,
pp. 93–103.
Tottie, G., 1991. Conversational style in British and American English: The case of backchannels.
In K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds), English Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman, pp.
254–271.
Tottie, G., 2015. Turn management and the fillers uh and um. In K. Aijmer and C. Rühlemann (eds),
Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 381–407.
Tracy, K., 1997. ‘Interactional trouble in emergency service requests: A problem of frames.’
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30(4), 315–343.
Tracy, K. and D.L. Anderson, 1999. ‘Relational positioning strategies in calls to the police: A
dilemma.’ Discourse Studies, 1, 201–226.
Trosborg, A., 1987. ‘Apology strategies in native and non-native speakers of English.’ Journal
of Pragmatics, 11(1), 147–167.
Tsui, A., 1994. English Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vaughan, E., 2007. ‘I think we should just accept…our horrible lowly status: Analysing
teacher–teacher talk within the context of community of practice.’ Language Awareness,
16(3), 173–189.
Vaughan, E., 2008. ‘Got a date or something?: An analysis of the role of humour and
laughter in the workplace discourse of English language teachers.’ In A. Ädel and R.
Reppen (eds), Corpora and Discourse: The Challenge of Different Settings. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins, pp. 95–115.
Vaughan, E., 2009. ‘Just say something and we can all argue then’: Community and Identity
in the Workplace Talk of English Language Teachers. Unpublished PhD thesis, Limerick,
Ireland: Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick.
Vaughan, E. and B. Clancy, 2013. ‘Small corpora and pragmatics.’ Yearbook of Corpus
Linguistics and Pragmatics, 1, 53–73.
Vaughan, E. and A. O’Keeffe, 2015. Corpus analysis. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie and T. Sandel (eds),
The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Denver, CO: Wiley,
pp. 252–268.
Vaughan, E., M. McCarthy and B. Clancy, 2017. ‘Vague category markers as turn final items
in Irish English.’ World Englishes, 36(2), 208–223.
Vellenga, H., 2004. ‘Learning pragmatics from ESL and EFL textbooks: How likely?’ TESL-EJ,
8(2). Available online at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1068091.pdf (accessed 7 May
2019).
Ventola, E., 1987. The Structure of Social Interaction: A Systematic Approach to the Semiotics of
Service Encounters. London: Pinter.
Wales, K., 1996. Personal Pronouns in Present-Day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Walsh, S., A. O’Keeffe and M. McCarthy, 2008. ‘Post-colonialism, multi-culturalism, structuralism,
feminism, post-modernism and so on so forth’ – Vague language in academic discourse,
a comparative analysis of form, function and context. In A. Ädel and R. Reppen (eds),
Corpora and Discourse: The Challenge of Different Settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
pp. 9–29.
254 References

Ward, G. and B. Birner, 1993. ‘The semantics and pragmatics of and everything.’ Journal of
Pragmatics, 19(3), 205–214.
Watts, R., 1989. ‘Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behaviour.’
Multilingua, 8(2/3), 131–166.
Watts, R., 1992. Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsidering claims for
universality. In R. Watts, S. Ide and K. Ehlich (eds), Politeness in Language: Studies in its
History, Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 43–69.
Watts, R., 2003. Politeness. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.
Weisser, M., 2015. Speech act annotation. In K. Aijmer and C. Rühlemann (eds), Corpus
Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 84–113.
Weisser, M., 2016a. Practical Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction to Corpus-based Language
Analysis. Oxford: Wiley.
Weisser, M., 2016b. ‘DART – The dialogue annotation and research tool.’ Corpus Linguistics
and Linguistic Theory, 12(2), 355–388.
Weisser, M., 2018. How to Do Corpus Pragmatics on Pragmatically Annotated Data: Speech
Acts and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Whalen, M.R. and D.H. Zimmerman, 1987. ‘Sequential and institutional context in calls for
help.’ Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2), 172–185.
Wichmann, A., 2005. ‘Please – From courtesy to appeal: The role of intonation in the
expression of attitudinal meaning.’ English Language and Linguistics, 9(2), 229–253.
Wittenburg, P., H. Brugman, A. Russel, A. Klassmann and H. Sloetjes, 2006. ELAN: A
Professional Framework for Multimodality Research. In Proceedings of LREC 2006,
Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Paris: European
Language Resources Association (ELRA).
Wolfram, W. and N. Schilling-Estes, 2006. American English. Oxford: Blackwell.
Woodfield, H., 2012. ‘I think maybe I want to lend the notes from you’: Development of request
modification in graduate learners. In M. Economidou-Kogetsidis and H. Woodfield (eds),
Interlanguage Request Modification. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 9–49.
Woodman, G., 2005. ‘Review of Mats Deutschmann, Apologising in British English.’ Language
in Society, 34, 314–317.
Wray, A., 2012. ‘What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of
the current state of play.’ Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 231–254.
Wray, A., 2013. ‘Formulaic language.’ Language Teaching, 46(3), 316–334.
Yoon, Y.B. and D. Kellogg, 2002. ‘“Ducks” and “parrots”: Elaboration, duplication and duplicity
in a cartoon discourse completion test.’ Evaluation and Research in Education, 16(4),
218–239.
Yuan, Y., 2001. ‘An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs,
oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 271–292.
Zhang, G.Q. and P.G. Sabat, 2016. ‘Elastic “I think”: Stretching over L1 and L2.’ Applied
Linguistics, 37(3), 334–353.