Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgment
- Contributors
- Introduction The Rise of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Part I Theoretical Foundation
- Part II Key Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics Research
- Part III Interface of Intercultural Pragmatics and Related Disciplines
- Part IV Intercultural Pragmatics in Different Types of Communication
- Part V Language Learning
- Index
- References
Part IV - Intercultural Pragmatics in Different Types of Communication
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 September 2022
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgment
- Contributors
- Introduction The Rise of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Part I Theoretical Foundation
- Part II Key Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics Research
- Part III Interface of Intercultural Pragmatics and Related Disciplines
- Part IV Intercultural Pragmatics in Different Types of Communication
- Part V Language Learning
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics , pp. 525 - 738Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
References
Abdel-Raheem, A. (2019). Pictorial Framing in Moral Politics: A Corpus-Based Experimental Study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Adami, E. (2017). Multimodality. In García, O., Flores, N., and Spotti, M., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 451–472.Google Scholar
Archer, A. and Breuer, E. (eds.) (2015). Multimodality in Writing: The State of the Art in Theory, Methodology and Pedagogy. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, J. A. (2008). Multimodality and Genre: A Foundation for the Systematic Analysis of Multimodal Documents. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, J. A. (2014). Text and Image: A Critical Introduction to the Visual/Verbal Divide. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, J. A. (2016). Methodological and theoretical issues in multimodality. In Klug, N.-M. and Stöckl, H., eds., Handbuch Sprache im Multimodalen Kontext. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 36–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, J. A., Wildfeuer, J., and Hiippala, T. (2017). Multimodality: Foundations, Research and Analysis. A Problem-Oriented Introduction. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bateman, J. A., Wildfeuer, J., and Hiippala, T. (2020). A question of definitions: Foundations for multimodality: A response to Charles Forceville’s review. Visual Communication, 19(2), 317–320.Google Scholar
Bordwell, D. (1989). Making Meaning: Inference and Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohn, N. (2013). The Visual Language of Comics: Introduction to the Structure and Cognition of Sequential Images. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Cohn, N. (2020). Who Understands Comics? Questioning the Universality of Visual Language Comprehension. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
El Refaie, E. (2003). Understanding visual metaphors: The example of newspaper cartoons. Visual Communication, 2(1), 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El Refaie, E. (2009). Metaphor in political cartoons: Exploring audience responses. In Forceville, C. and Urios-Aparisi, E., eds., Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elleström, L. (ed.) (2010). Media Borders, Multimodality and Intermediality. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, Y. (2002). The Language of Graphics: A Framework for the Analysis of Syntax and Meaning in Maps, Charts and Diagrams. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (1999). Educating the eye? Kress and Van Leeuwen’s Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (1996). Language and Literature, 8(2), 163–178.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (2005). Visual representations of the Idealized Cognitive Model of anger in the Asterix album La Zizanie. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(1), 69–88.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (2013). Creative visual duality in comics balloons. In Veale, T., Feyaerts, K., and Forceville, C., eds., Creativity and the Agile Mind: A Multi-Disciplinary Exploration of a Multi-Faceted Phenomenon. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 253–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, C. (2017). Visual and multimodal metaphor in advertising: Cultural perspectives. Styles of Communication, 9(2), pp. 26–41.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (2019). Reflections on the creative use of traffic signs’ “micro-language.” In Benedek, A. and Nyíri, K., eds., Image and Metaphor in the New Century (Perspectives on Visual Learning vol. 3). Budapest: Budapest University of Technology and Economics/Hungarian Academy of Sciences, pp. 103–113.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (2020a). Visual and Multimodal Communication: Applying the Relevance Principle. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (2020b). Book review of J. A. Bateman, J. Wildfeuer, and T. Hiippala, Multimodality: Foundations, Research and Analysis. A Problem-Oriented Introduction (De Gruyter 2017). Journal of Visual Communication, 19(1), 157–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, C. (2021). Multimodality. In Wen, X. and Taylor, J. R., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 676–687.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. and Jeulink, M. (2011). “The flesh and blood of embodied understanding”: The source-path-goal schema in animation film. Pragmatics and Cognition, 19(1), 37–59.Google Scholar
Forceville, C., El Refaie, E., and Meesters, G. (2014). Stylistics and comics. In Burke, M., ed., Routledge Handbook of Stylistics. London: Routledge, pp. 485–499.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. and van de Laar, N. (2019). Metaphors portraying right-wing politician Geert Wilders in Dutch political cartoons. In Hidalgo-Tenorio, E., Ángel Benítez-Castro, M., and de Cesare, F., eds., Populist Discourse: Critical Approaches to Contemporary Politics. London: Routledge, pp. 292–307.Google Scholar
Gibbons, A. (2012). Multimodality, Cognition, and Experimental Literature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grau, O. and Veigl, T. (eds.) (2011). Imagery in the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 21–35.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Guan, Y. and Forceville, C. (2020). Making cross-cultural meaning in five Chinese promotional clips: Metonymies and metaphors. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(2), 123–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, A. (2018). Multimodal meaning-making in Classic Maya inscriptions. LaMiCuS, 2, 132–146.Google Scholar
Ildirar, S. and Schwan, S. (2011). Watching films for the first time. In Sachs-Hombach, K. and Totzke, R., eds., Bilder-Sehen-Denken: Zum Verhältnis von begrifflich-philosophischen und empirisch-psychologischen Ansätzen in der bildwissenschaftlichen Forschung. Cologne: Von Halem, pp. 192–203.Google Scholar
Jewitt, C. (2014). The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., and O’ Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing Multimodality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kashanizadeh, Z. and Forceville, C. (2020). Visual and multimodal interaction of metaphor and metonymy: A study of Iranian and Dutch print advertisements. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 7(1), 78–110.Google Scholar
Klug, N.-M. and Stöck, H. (eds.) (2016). Handbuch Sprache im multimodalen Kontext [The Language in Multimodal Contexts Handbook]. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. (3rd ed. published in 2021.) London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (eds.) (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Discourse. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Mavers, D. (2014). Image in the multimodal ensemble: Children’s drawing. In Jewitt, C., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 431–439.Google Scholar
Meili-Dworetzki, G. (1982). Spielarten des Menschenbildes: Ein Vergleich der Menschenzeichnungen japanischer und schweizerischer Kinder. Bern: Hans Huber.Google Scholar
Moya Guijarro, A. J. (2014). A Multimodal Analysis of Picture Books for Children: A Systematic Functional Approach. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Moya Guijarro, A. J. and Ventola, E. (eds.) (2022). A Multimodal Approach to Challenging Gender Stereotypes in Children’s Picture Books. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Munn, N. (2016). The Walbiri sand story. In Cohen, N., ed., The Visual Narrative Reader. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 231–251.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2016). Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Nørgaard, N. (2009). The semiotics of typography in literary texts: A multimodal approach. Orbis Litterarum, 64(2), 141–160.Google Scholar
Pauwels, L. (2015). Reframing Visual Social Science: Towards a More Visual Sociology and Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, G. (2016). Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials, 4th ed. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Royce, T. D. and Bowcher, W. L. (eds.) (2007). New Directions in the Analysis of Multimodal Discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sachs-Hombach, K. (ed.) (2005). Bildwissenschaft: Zwischen Reflexion und Anwendung. Cologne: Von Halem.Google Scholar
Sachs-Hombach, K. (2006). Das Bild als kommunikatives Medium: Elemente einer allgemeinen Bildwissenschaft. Cologne: Halem.Google Scholar
Sachs-Hombach, K. and Totzke, R. (eds.) (2011). Bilder-Sehen-Denken: Zum Verhältnis von begrifflich-philosophischen und empirisch-psychologischen Ansätzen in der bildwissenschaftlichen Forschung. Cologne: Von Halem.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. and Wong Scollon, S. (2003). Discourses in Place: Language in the Material World. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schilperoord, J. and Maes, A. (2009). Visual metaphoric conceptualization in editorial cartoons. In Forceville, C. and Urios-Aparisi, E., eds., Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 213–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shinohara, K. and Matsunaka, Y. (2009). Pictorial metaphors of emotion in Japanese comics. In Forceville, C. and Urios-Aparisi, E., eds., Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 265–293.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stöckl, H. (2005). Typography: Body and dress of a text – a signing mode between language and image. Visual Communication, 4(2), 76–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stöckl, H. (2014). Typography. In Norris, S. and Daniela Maier, C., eds., Interactions, Images and Texts: A Reader in Multimodality. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 281–294.Google Scholar
Tseronis, A. and Forceville, C. (eds.) (2017). Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Typographic meaning. Visual Communication, 4(2), 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildfeuer, J., Pflaeging, J., Bateman, J. A., Seizov, O., and Tseng, C.-I. ( eds.) (2019). Multimodality: Towards a New Discipline. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. P. (2016). Alternative representations of space: Arrernte narratives in sand. In Cohn, N., ed., The Visual Narrative Reader. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 253–281.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Malden MA: Blackwell, pp. 607–632.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (eds.) (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2011). Cyberpragmatics: Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zhang, C. (2021). The Sino–US trade war in political cartoons: A synthesis of semiotic, cognitive, and cultural perspectives. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 469–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, C. and Forceville, C. (2020). Metaphor and metonymy in Chinese and American political cartoons (2018–2019) about the Sino-US Trade conflict. Pragmatics and Cognition, 27(2), 476–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Bremer, K., Roberts, C., Vasseur, M. T., Simnot, M., and Broeder, P. (2014). Achieving Understanding: Discourse in Intercultural Encounters. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Deterding, D. (2013). Misunderstandings in English as a Lingua Franca: An Analysis of ELF Interactions in South-East Asia. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On “lingua franca” English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(2), 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geenen, J., Matelau-Doherty, T., and Norris, S. (2021) Visual transcription: A method to analyse the visual and visualise the audible in interaction. Revue française des méthodes visuelles, 5, 1–55.Google Scholar
House, J. (1999). Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in English as lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility. In Gnutzmann, Claus, ed., Teaching and Learning English as a Global Language. Tubingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 73–89.Google Scholar
Jovanović, V. Ž. (2012) Emblematic elements of non-verbal communication with English and Serbian speakers. Collection of Papers. Language, Literature, Communication. Niš: Filozofski fakultet, pp. 452–473.Google Scholar
Kaur, J. (2009). Pre-empting problems of understanding in English as a Lingua Franca. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E., eds., English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 107–123.Google Scholar
Kaur, J. (2011). Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca: Some sources of misunderstanding. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(1). 93–116.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2006). Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177, 123–150.Google Scholar
Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing Multimodal Interaction: A Methodological Framework. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Norris, S. (2011). Identity in (Inter)action: Introducing Multimodal (Inter)action analysis. Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Norris, S. (2019). Systematically Working with Multimodal Data: Research Methods in Multimodal Discourse Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Norris, S. (2020). Multimodal Theory and Methodology for the Analysis of (Inter)action and Identity. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pang, Y. (2020). The cognitive saliency of word associations of verbs of speech in English as a Lingua Franca interactions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(4), 417–443.Google Scholar
Pirini, J. and Geenen, J. (2018). Gaze and posture in collaborative building: A multimodal video analysis of emergent shared knowledge. Proceedings of 32nd Annual Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference, pp. 1025–1041.Google Scholar
Rajic, I. and Norris, S. (2018). Multimodality of lingua franca communication in dyadic teams in New Zealand using Skype. Paper presented at Sociolinguistic Symposium 22. Auckland, New Zealand, June 27–30.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. (2001). Action and text: Towards an integrated understanding of the place of text in social (inter) action, mediated discourse analysis and the problem of social action. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 113, 139–183.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1984). The pragmatics of cross-cultural communication. Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 189–195.Google Scholar
References
Atifi, S., Mandelcwaijg, S., and Marcoccia, M. (2011). The co-operative principle and computer-mediated communication: The maxim of quantity in newsgroup discussions. Language Sciences, 33(2), 330–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi‐Harlig, K. and Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. Tesol Quarterly, 32(2), 233–259.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Sprouse, R. A. (2018). Negative versus positive transfer. In Lionitas, J. I., ed., The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. Indianapolis: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Belz, Julie A. (2007). The role of computer mediation in the instruction and development of L2 pragmatic competence. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 45–75.Google Scholar
Benson, P. (2015). Commenting to learn: Evidence of language and intercultural learning in comments on YouTube videos. Language Learning and Technology, 19(3), 88–105.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., Blondheim, M., House, J., Kasper, G., and Wagner, J. (2008). Intercultural pragmatics, language and society. In Piet, van Sterkenburg, ed., Unity and Diversity of Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 155–173.Google Scholar
Boellstorff, T. (2015). Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bou-Franch, P. and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2014). Conflict management in massive polylogues: A case study from YouTube. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2019). Authorial engagement in business emails. Engagement in Professional Genres, 301, 47.Google Scholar
Choi, S. M., Kim, Y., Sung, Y., and Sohn, D. (2011). Bridging or bonding? A cross-cultural study of social relationships in social networking sites. Information, Communication and Society, 14(1), 107–129.Google Scholar
Chun, D. (2011). Developing intercultural communicative competence through online exchanges. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 392–419.Google Scholar
Cirillo, V. (2012). The pragmatics of virtual environments: Compliment responses in second life. Lingue e Linguaggi, 7, 37–58.Google Scholar
Coats, S. (2016). Grammatical feature frequencies of English on Twitter in Finland. English in Computer-Mediated Communication: Variation, Representation, and Change, 93, 179–209.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cunningham, D. J. (2014). The development of pragmatic competence through telecollaboration: An analysis of requesting behavior. Doctoral dissertation: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Cunningham, D. J. (2016). Request modification in synchronous computer‐mediated communication: The role of focused instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 100(2): 484–507.Google Scholar
Darics, E. (2010). Politeness in computer-mediated discourse of a virtual team. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 6(1), 129–150.Google Scholar
Davies, G. (2016). CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning). www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/61 (retrieved in June 2020].Google Scholar
Dirlik, A. (1987). Culturalism as hegemonic ideology and liberating practice. Cultural Critique, 6, 13–50.Google Scholar
Dooly, M. A. (2011). Crossing the intercultural borders into 3rd space culture (s): Implications for teacher education in the twenty-first century. Language and Intercultural Communication, 11(4), 319–337.Google Scholar
Dresner, E. and Herring, S. C. (2010). Functions of the non-verbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory, 20(3), 249–268.Google Scholar
Eleta, I. (2012). Multilingual use of twitter: Social networks and language choice. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work Companion. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 363–366.Google Scholar
Feng, W. and Ren, W. (2020). Impoliteness in negative online consumer reviews: A cross-language and cross-sector comparison. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010). The YouTubification of politics, impoliteness and polarization. In Taiwo, R., ed., Handbook of Research on Discourse Behavior and Digital Communication: Language Structures and Social Interaction. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 540–563.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., Lorenzo-Dus, N., and Bou-Franch, P. (2013). Relational work in anonymous, asynchronous communication: A study of (dis) affiliation in YouTube. In Kecskes, I. and Romero-Trillo, J., eds., Research Trends in Intercultural Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 343–366.Google Scholar
García-Gómez, A. (2020a). Learning through WhatsApp: Students’ beliefs, L2 pragmatic development, and interpersonal relationships. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–19.Google Scholar
García-Gómez, A. (2020b). Intercultural and interpersonal communication failures: Analyzing hostile interactions among British and Spanish university students on WhatsApp. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(1), 27–51.Google Scholar
Gonzales, A. M. (2012). Interlanguage pragmatic development in native speaker/nonnative speaker participatory online environments. Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Mexico.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, A. (2013). Rapport Management and Online Learning: L2 Socialization in Livemocha. London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 219–238.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2009). CA for computer-mediated interaction in the Spanish L2 classroom. In Nguyen, H. and Kasper, G., eds., Talk-in-Interaction: Multilingual Perspectives. Honolulu, HI: NFLRC and University of Hawaii Press, pp. 281–316.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, Marta. (2015). Conversation analysis in computer-assisted language learning. CALICO Journal, 32(3), 569–594.Google Scholar
Graham, S. L. (2007). Disagreeing to agree: Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 742–759.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2007). The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research, 3, 295–317.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. (2004). Online communication: Through the lens of discourse. In Consalvo, M., Baym, N., Hunsinger, J., Jensen, K. B., Logie, J., Murero, M., and Shade, L. R., eds., Internet Research Annual, Vol. I. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 65–76.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. (2019). The coevolution of computer-mediated communication and computer-mediated discourse analysis. In Bou-Franch, P. and Blitvich, P. Garcés-Conejos, eds., Analyzing Digital Discourse. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 25–67.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C., Stein, D., and Virtanen, T. (eds.) (2013). Handbook of Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Highfield, Tim, Harrington, Stephen, and Bruns, Axel (2013). Twitter as a technology for audiencing and fandom: The Eurovision phenomenon. Information, Communication and Society, 16(3), 315–339.Google Scholar
Hirotani, M. and Fujii, K. (2019). Learning proverbs through telecollaboration with Japanese native speakers: Facilitating L2 learners’ intercultural communicative competence. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 4 (1), 5.Google Scholar
House, J. (2000). How to remain a non-native speaker. In Riemer, C., ed., Cognitive Aspects of Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 101–118.Google Scholar
Ivković, D. (2013). The Eurovision Song Contest on YouTube: A corpus-based analysis of language attitudes. Language@Internet, 10. www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2013/Ivkovic.Google Scholar
Ishihara, N. and Takamiya, Y. (2019). Pragmatic development through blogs: A longitudinal study of telecollaboration and language socialization. In Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 829–854.Google Scholar
Jacobs, M. (2012). Playing “nice”: What online gaming can teach us about multiculturalism. In St. Amant, Kirk and Kelsey, Sigrid, eds., Computer-Mediated Communication across Cultures: International Interactions in Online Environments. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 32–44.Google Scholar
Jandt, F. (2013). An Introduction to Intercultural Communication: Identities in a Global Community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jenks, C. J. and Brandt, A. (2013). Managing mutual orientation in the absence of physical copresence: Multiparty voice-based chat room interaction. Discourse Processes, 50(4), 227–248.Google Scholar
Johnson, N. H. and deHaan, J. (2013). Strategic Interaction 2.0: Instructed intercultural pragmatics in an EFL context. International Journal of Strategic Information Technology and Applications (IJSITA), 4(1), 49–62.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2016). Can intercultural pragmatics bring some new insight into pragmatic theories? In Capone, Alessandro and Mey, Jacob L., eds., Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Cham: Springer, pp. 43–69.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2017). Cross-cultural and intercultural pragmatics. In Huang, Yan, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 400–415. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697960.001.0001.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2020). Using telecollaboration 2.0 to build intercultural communicative competence: a Spanish-American exchange. In Information Resources Management Association, Language Learning and Literacy: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 575–593.Google Scholar
Lenkaitis, C. A., Calo, S., and Venegas Escobar, S. (2019). Exploring the intersection of language and culture via telecollaboration: Utilizing videoconferencing for intercultural competence development. International Multilingual Research Journal, 13(2), 102–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, M. (1997). CALL: Context and Conceptualisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, N., Blitvich, P. G. C., and Bou-Franch, P. (2011). On-line polylogues and impoliteness: The case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube video. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10), 2578–2593.Google Scholar
Maíz-Arévalo, C. (2014). Expressing disagreement in English as a lingua franca: Whose pragmatic rules? Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(2), 199–224.Google Scholar
Maíz Arévalo, C. (2016). Emoticons in transactional and interactional exchanges: Social networking chitchat versus working negotiation. Odisea, 17, 19–35.Google Scholar
Nastri, J., Pena, J., and Hancock, J. T. (2006). The construction of away messages: A speech act analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), 1025–1045.Google Scholar
O’Dowd, R. (2016). Learning from the past and looking to the future of online intercultural exchange. In O’Dowd, R. and Lewis, T., eds., Online Intercultural Exchange: Policy, Pedagogy, Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 273–293.Google Scholar
O’Dowd, R. and Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and working with “failed communication” in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 623–642.Google Scholar
Pang, Yang. (2020). The cognitive saliency of word associations of verbs of speech in English as a Lingua Franca interactions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(4), 417–443.Google Scholar
Phillips, W. and Milner, R. M. (2017). The Ambivalent Internet: Mischief, Oddity, and Antagonism Online. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Piri, S., and Riahi, S. (2018). Cross-cultural perspectives on technology-enhanced language learning: A review of research. In Tafazoli, Dara, Elena Gomez Parra, M., and Huertas-Abril, Cristina A., eds., Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Technology-Enhanced Language Learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Rafieyan, V., Rafieyan, A., Rafieyan, N., Rafieyan, S., Rafieyan, P., and Rafieyan, M. (2015). Effect of developing pragmatic competence through telecollaboration on improving English as foreign language learners’ writing proficiency. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(27), 121–131.Google Scholar
Rive, P. B. (2016). Virtual design teams in virtual worlds: A theoretical framework using second life. In Baggio, Bobbe Gaines, ed., Analyzing Digital Discourse and Human Behavior in Modern Virtual Environments. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 60–86.Google Scholar
Rive, P. and Thomassen, A. (2012). International collaboration and design innovation in virtual worlds: Lessons from second life. In St. Amant, Kirk and Kelsey, Sigrid, eds., Computer-Mediated Communication across Cultures: International Interactions in Online Environments. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 429–448.Google Scholar
Rowe, I. (2015). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication and Society, 18(2), 121–138.Google Scholar
Santana, A. D. (2014). Virtuous or vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 18–33.Google Scholar
Schreiber, M. and Engelmann, T. (2010). Knowledge and information awareness for initiating transactive memory system processes of computer-supported collaborating ad hoc groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1701–1709.Google Scholar
St. Amant, K. (2012). Considering computer-mediated Communication across Cultures: The Global Nature of Cyberspace. In Amant, Kirk St. and Kelsey, Sigrid, eds., Computer-Mediated Communication across Cultures: International Interactions in Online Environments. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference (ISR)-IGI, pp. xiv–xxiii.Google Scholar
Timpe-Laughlin, V. and Dombi, J.. (2020). Exploring L2 learners’ request behavior in a multi-turn conversation with a fully automated agent. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(2), 221–257.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.Google Scholar
Tsai, M.-H., and Kinginger, C. (2014). Giving and receiving advice in computer-mediated peer response activities. CALICO Journal, 32(1), 82–112.Google Scholar
Vandergriff, I. (2013). Emotive communication online: A contextual analysis of computer-mediated communication (CMC) cues. Journal of Pragmatics, 51, 1–12.Google Scholar
Vandergriff, I. (2014). A pragmatic investigation of emoticon uses in nonnative/native speaker text chat. Language @ Internet, 11. www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2014/vandergriff.Google Scholar
Ware, P. D. and Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 190–205.Google Scholar
Waugh, E. (2013). Teaching pragmatics and intercultural communication online. TESL Canada Journal, 30(7), 98–98.Google Scholar
Yang, P. (2012). Knowing through asynchronous time and Space: A phenomenological study of cultural differences in online interaction. In St. Amant, Kirk and Kelsey, Sigrid, eds., Computer-Mediated Communication across Cultures: International Interactions in Online Environments. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 108–122.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. F. (2013). Exploring students’ language awareness through intercultural communication in computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 16(2), 325–342.Google Scholar
Zamborlin, C. (2007). Going beyond pragmatic failures: dissonance in intercultural communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(1), 21-50.Google Scholar
Zheng, D., Young, M. F., Wagner, M. M., and Brewer, R. A. (2009). Negotiation for action: English language learning in game‐based virtual worlds. The Modern Language Journal, 93(4), 489-511.Google Scholar
References
Acknowledgments: This chapter is funded by The Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, P.R. China, and also part of the research outcome by the “Business Discourse Research Innovation Team” funded by the Department of Education of Guangdong Province, China (No. 2021WCXTD007)
AlAfnan, M. A. (2015). Language use in computer-mediated communication: An investigation into the genre of workplace emails. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 3(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
AlAfnan, M. A. (2017). Critical perspective to genre analysis: Intertextuality and interdiscursivity in electronic mail communication. Advances in Journalism and Communication, 5(1), 23.Google Scholar
AlAfnan, M. A. (2020). The Text-in-Context of Email Communication. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Alzahrani, A. A. (2020). Disagreement strategies used by speakers of English as a Lingua Franca in business meetings. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 11(3), 46–56.Google Scholar
Androutsopoulos, J. and Juffermans, K. (2014). Digital language practices in superdiversity: Introduction. Discourse, Context and Media, 3(4–5), 1–6.Google Scholar
Angouri, J. (2010). “If we know about culture it will be easier to work with one another.” Developing skills for handling corporate meetings with multinational participation. Language and Intercultural Communication, 10(3), 206–224.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2013). Face as a research focus in interpersonal pragmatics: Relational and emic perspectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 108–120.Google Scholar
Baker, W. (2011). Intercultural awareness: Modelling an understanding of cultures in intercultural communication through English as a lingua franca. Language and Intercultural Communication, 11(3), 197–214.Google Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Harris, S. (eds.) (1997). The Languages of Business: An International Perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Nickerson, C., and Planken, B. (2007). Business Discourse. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Baron, N. S. (1998). Letters by phone or speech by other means: The linguistics of email. Language and Communication, 18, 133–170.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. and Candlin, C. N. (eds.) (2001). Teaching English to Meet the Needs of Business Education in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing Genre: Language in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Birlik, S. and Kaur, J. (2020). BELF expert users: Making understanding visible in internal BELF meetings through the use of nonverbal communication strategies. English for Specific Purposes, 58, 1–14.Google Scholar
Björge, A. (2010). Conflict or cooperation: The use of backchannelling in ELF negotiations. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 191–203.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., Blondheim, M., House, J., Kasper, G., and Johannes, W. (2008). Intercultural pragmatics, language and society. In van Sterkenburg, P., ed., Unity and Diversity of Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 155–173.Google Scholar
Bodin, M. and Dawson, K. (2002). The Call Center Dictionary. San Francisco: CMP Media LLC.Google Scholar
Bolten, J. (1999). Intercultural business communication: An interactive approach. In Lovitt, C. R. and Goswami, D., eds., Exploring the Rhetoric of International Professional Communication. New York: Baywood, pp. 139–156.Google Scholar
Bond, M.H. (1988). Finding universal dimensions of individual variation in multicultural studies of values: The Rokeach and Chinese value surveys. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(6), 1009–1015.Google Scholar
Bou-Franch, P. (2011). Openings and closings in Spanish email conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1772–1785.Google Scholar
Boussebaa, M. (2020). From cultural differences to cultural globalization: Towards a new research agenda in cross-cultural management studies. Critical Perspectives on International Business. https://doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-01-2020-0003.Google Scholar
Brannen, M. Y. and Salk, J. E. (2000). Partnering across borders: Negotiating organizational culture in a German–Japanese joint venture. Human Relations, 53, 451–487.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, A. and Webster, J. (2005). Unintended consequences of emerging communication technologies: Instant messaging in the workplace. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(1), 85–103.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (2000). Good to Talk? Living and Working in a Communication Culture. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Camiciottoli, C. B. (2017). The interpersonal pragmatics of intercultural financial discourse: A contrastive analysis of European vs. Asian earnings conference calls. In Kecskes, I and Assimakopoulos, S., eds., Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 105–127.Google Scholar
Camiciottoli, C. B. (2020). Using English as a lingua franca to engage with investors: An analysis of Italian and Japanese companies’ investor relations communication policies. English for Specific Purposes, 58, 90–101.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua Franca English, multilingual communities and language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 91, 923–939.Google Scholar
Cardon, P. W. (2009). A model of face practices in Chinese business culture: Implications for western businesspersons. Thunderbird International Business Review, 51(1), 19–36.Google Scholar
Chang, W. (2013). Face and face practices in talk-in-interaction: An empirical analysis of Taiwanese business interactions. PhD thesis, Griffith University.Google Scholar
Charles, M. (1996). Business negotiations: Interdependence between discourse and the business relationship. English for Specific Purposes, 15(1), 19–36.Google Scholar
Charles, M. (1998) Europe: Oral business communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 61(3), 85–93.Google Scholar
Charles, M. (2007) Language matters in global communication. Journal of Business Communication, 44(3), 260–282.Google Scholar
Chen, R. R., Davison, M. Robert, O., and Carol, X. (2020). A symbolic interactionism perspective of using social media for personal and business communication. International Journal of Information Management, 51, 1–18.Google Scholar
Cheung, C. M. K., Lee, Z. W. Y., and Chan, T. K. H. (2015) Self-disclosure in social networking sites: The role of perceived cost, perceived benefits and social influence. Internet Research, 25(2), 279–299.Google Scholar
Cho, T. (2010). Linguistic features of electronic mail in the workplace: A comparison with memoranda. Language@ Internet, 7(3), 1–28.Google Scholar
Chung, D. and Chang, S. N. (2007). An analysis of the variables predicting instant messenger use. New Media and Society, 9(2), 212–234.Google Scholar
Clausen, L. (2007). Corporate communication challenges: A “negotiated” culture perspective. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 7(3), 317–332.Google Scholar
Cockburn-Wootten, C., Holmes, P., and Simpson, M. (2008). Teaching teamwork in business communication/management programs. Business Communication Quarterly, 71(4), 417–520.Google Scholar
Cooper, C. (2008). Elucidating the bonds of workplace humor: A relational process model. Human Relations, 61(8), 1087–1115.Google Scholar
Darics, E. (2010). Politeness in computer-mediated discourse of a virtual meeting. Journal of Politeness Research, 6, 129–150.Google Scholar
De Felice, R. and Garretson, G. (2018). Politeness at work in the Clinton email corpus: A first look at the effects of status and gender. Corpus Pragmatics, 2(3), 221–242.Google Scholar
Decock, S. and Spiessens, A. (2017). Face-threatening email complaint negotiation in a multilingual business environment: A discursive analysis of refusal and disagreement strategies. In I. Kecskes and S. Assimakopoulos, eds., Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 129–156.Google Scholar
Deumert, A. (2014). Digital superdiversity: A commentary. Discourse, Context and Media, 4, 116–120.Google Scholar
Du-Babcock, B. (2009). English as a business lingua franca: A framework of integrative approach to future research in international business communication. In Louhiala-Salminen, L. and Kankaanranta, A., eds., The Ascent of International Business Communication. Helsinki: HSE Print, pp. 45–66.Google Scholar
Ehrenreich, S. (2010a). English as a lingua franca in multinational corporations: Exploring business communities of practice. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E., eds., English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 126–151.Google Scholar
Ehrenreich, S. (2010b). English as a business lingua franca in a German multinational corporation: Meeting the challenge. Journal of Business Communication, 47(4), 408–431.Google Scholar
Ehrenreich, S. (2016). English as a lingua franca (ELF) in international business contexts: Key issues and future perspectives. In Murata, K., ed., Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts. London/New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis, pp. 135–155.Google Scholar
Evans, S. (2012). Designing email tasks for the Business English classroom: Implications from a study of Hong Kong’s key industries. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 202–212.Google Scholar
Fairclough-Isaacs, K. (2015). Celebrity culture and ageing. In Twigg, J. and Martin, W., eds., Routledge Handbook of Cultural Gerontology. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 383–390.Google Scholar
Feng, W. and Ren, W. (2020). Impoliteness in negative online consumer reviews: A cross-language and cross-sector comparison. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On “lingua franca” English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(2), 237–259.Google Scholar
Forey, G. and Lam, M. (2013). Applying systemic functional linguistics: Understanding the choices of quality in the workplace. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 9(1), 61–80.Google Scholar
Forey, G. and Lockwood, J. (2007). “I’d love to put someone in jail for this”: An initial investigation of English in the business processing outsourcing (BPO) industry. English for Specific Purpose, 26, 308–326.Google Scholar
Friginal, E. (2009). Threats to the sustainability of the outsourced call centre industry in the Philippines: Implications for language policy. Language Policy, 8, 51–68.Google Scholar
Gerritsen, M. and Nickerson, C. (2009). BELF: Business English as a Lingua Franca. In Bargiela-Chiappini, F., ed., The Handbook of Business Discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 180–192.Google Scholar
Gimenez, Dr. J. (2000). Business e-mail communication: Some emerging tendencies in register. English for Specific Purposes, 19(3), 237–251.Google Scholar
Goby, V. P. (2007). Business communication needs: A multicultural perspective. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 21(4), 425–437.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18(3), 213–231.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Goh, K. Y., Heng, C. S., and Lin, Z. (2015). Social media brand community and consumer behavior: Quantifying the relative impact of user- and marketer-generated content. Information Systems Research, 24(1), 88–107.Google Scholar
Gordon, C. and Luke, M. (2012). Discursive negotiation of face via email: Professional identity development in school counseling supervision. Linguistics and Education, 23(1), 112–122.Google Scholar
Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 237–257.Google Scholar
Gudykunst, W. (ed.) (2005). Theorizing about Intercultural Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Guffey, M. E. (2010). Essentials of Business Communication, 8th ed. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, E. T. and Hall, M. R. (1987). Hidden Differences: Doing Business with the Japanese. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Hall, E. T. and Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French, and Americans. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.Google Scholar
Harris, A. (2007). Distributed leadership: Conceptual confusion and empirical reticence. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(3), 315–325.Google Scholar
Haugh, M, (2013). Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 52–72.Google Scholar
Ho, V. (2011a). What functions do intertextuality and interdiscursivity serve in request e-mail discourse? Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10), 2534–2547.Google Scholar
Ho, V. (2011b). A discourse-based study of three communities of practice: How members maintain a harmonious relationship while threatening each other’s face via email. Discourse Studies, 13(3), 299–326.Google Scholar
Ho, V. (2018). Using metadiscourse in making persuasive attempts through workplace request emails. Journal of Pragmatics, 134, 70–81.Google Scholar
Ho, V. (2020). Do hotels enhance and challenge rapport with customers with the same degree of commitment? Journal of Pragmatics, 166, 70–83.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (1980a). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42–63.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. H. (1980b). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. H. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Marra, M. (2004). Relational practice in the workplace: Women’s talk or gendered discourse? Language in Society, 33(3), 377–398.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and Politeness in the Workplace. Edinburgh Gate and London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Stubbe, M. (2015). Power and Politeness in the Workplace: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Talk at Work, 2nd ed. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Holmes, J., Marra, M., and Vine, B. (2012). Leadership, Discourse and Ethnicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, J., Schnurr, S., Chan, A., and Chiles, T. (2003). The discourse of leadership. Te Reo, 46, 31–46.Google Scholar
Holt, E. (2012). Using laugh responses to defuse complaints. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(4), 430–448.Google Scholar
Hood, S. (2010). Naming and negotiating relationships in call centre talk. In Forey, G. and Lockwood, J., eds., Globalization, Communication and the Workplace: Talking across the World. London: Continuum, pp. 88–106.Google Scholar
Huang, H. C. (2016). Openings and closings in intercultural email communication: A case study of Taiwanese, Japanese, and Italian students. In Chen, Y. S., Rau, D. H. V., and Rau, G., eds., Email Discourse among Chinese Using English as a Lingua Franca. Singapore: Springer, pp. 185–204.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. and Rose, K. (2018). You, our shareholders: Metadiscourse in CEO letters from Chinese and Western banks. Text and Talk, 38(2), 167–190.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Politics of Academic English Language Policy. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J., Cogo, A., and Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44, 281–315.Google Scholar
Jeyaraj, J. (2018). Teaching business communication skills: A clarion call. Teaching Business Communication: Trends and Challenges and Opportunities. Pune: ELTIS, pp. 29–59.Google Scholar
Jiang, L. C., Bazarova, N. N., and Hancock, J. T. (2013). From 908 perception to behavior: Disclosure reciprocity and the intensification of intimacy incomputer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 40(1), 125–143.Google Scholar
Kalla, H. (2005). Integrated internal communications: A multidisciplinary perspective. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(4), 302–314.Google Scholar
Kankaanranta, A. (2006). “Hej Seppo, could you pls comment on this!”: Internal email communication in lingua franca English in a multinational company. Business Communication Quarterly, 69, 216–225.Google Scholar
Kankaanranta, A. and Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2010) “English? – Oh, it’s just work!”: A study of BELF users’ perceptions. English for Specific Purposes, 29(3), 204–209.Google Scholar
Kankaanranta, A. and Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2018) ELF in the domain of business – BELF: What does the B stand for ? In Jenkins, J., Baker, W., and Dewey, M., eds., Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 309–320.Google Scholar
Kankaanranta, A. and Lu, W. (2013). The evolution of English as the business lingua franca: Signs of convergence in Chinese and Finnish professional communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 27(3), 288–307.Google Scholar
Kankaanranta, A. and Planken, B. (2010). BELF competence as business knowledge of internationally operating business professionals. Journal of Business Communication, Special Issue on Language Matters, 47(2), 380–407.Google Scholar
Kankaanranta, A., Karhunen, P., and Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2018). “English as corporate language” in the multilingual reality of multinational companies. Multilingua, 37(4), 331–351.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2004). Lexical merging, conceptual blending and cultural crossing. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2007). Formulaic language in English lingua franca. In Kecskes, I. and Horn, L., eds., Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 191–218.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 385–406.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2010). Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 2889–2897.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2011). Understanding the role of context in language use. In Marcia, M. and Blitvich Pilar, G-C, eds., Pragmatics and Context. Toronto, CA: Antares, pp. 2–34.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2017). The interplay of recipient design and salience in shaping speaker’s utterance. In de Ponte, M. and Korta, K., eds., Reference and Representation in Thought and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 238–273.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17(2), 331–355.Google Scholar
Kerkeb, A. (2013). A genre analysis of business English emails: The case of a multinational’s Algerian employees. Multidisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research, 1(2), 34–47.Google Scholar
Kim, H. S. and Lee, H. (2017). Politeness in power-asymmetrical email requests of Korean and American corporate employees. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(2), 207–238.Google Scholar
Kitayama, S., Karasawa, M., Curhan, K., Ryff, C. D., and Markus, H. R. (2006). Independence, interdependence, and well-being: Divergent patterns in the United States and Japan. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Koester, A. and Handford, M. (2018). It’s not good saying “Well it might do that or it might not”’: Hypothetical reported speech in business meetings. Journal of Pragmatics, 130, 67–80.Google Scholar
Komori-Glatz, M. (2015). Exploring the roles of English: English as a lingua franca in master’s programmes at WU Vienna University of Economics and Business. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 173, 119–124.Google Scholar
Komori-Glatz, M. (2017). (B)ELF in multicultural student teamwork. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 6(1), 83–109.Google Scholar
Komori-Glatz, M. (2018a). “Cool my doubt is erased”: Constructive disagreement and creating a psychologically safe space in multicultural student teamwork. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 7(2), 285–306.Google Scholar
Komori-Glatz, M. (2018b). Conceptualising English as a business lingua franca. European Journal of International Management, 12(1–2), 46–61.Google Scholar
Kong, K. C. (2006) Accounts as a politeness strategy in the internal directive documents of a business firm in Hong Kong. Text, 18(1), 103–141.Google Scholar
Lauring, J. (2011). Intercultural organizational communication: The social organizing of interaction in international encounters. Journal of Business Communication, 48(3), 231–255.Google Scholar
Lee, J. S. (2006). Linguistic constructions of modernity: Korean-English mixing in TV commercials. Language in Society, 35(1), 59–91.Google Scholar
Lee, J. S. (2019). Multilingual advertising in the linguistic landscape of Seoul. World Englishes, 38, 500–518.Google Scholar
Liu, P. and Liu, H. (2017a). Responding to direct complaints: The role of MPEs in common ground construction in institutional telephone interactions. Pragmatics and Cognition, 24(1), 4–32.Google Scholar
Liu, P. and Liu, H. (2017b). Creating common ground: The role of metapragmatic expressions in BELF meeting interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 107, 1–15.Google Scholar
Liu, P. and Liu, H. (2021). Salience adjusting: Metapragmatic expressions in complaint responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 176, 150–163.Google Scholar
Lockwood, J. and Song, Y. (2020). Understanding each other: Strategies for accommodation in a virtual business team project based in China. International Journal of Business Communication, 57(1), 113–144.Google Scholar
Lockwood, J. (2017). An analysis of web-chat in an outsourced customer service account in the Philippines. English for Specific Purposes, 47, 26–39.Google Scholar
Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2009). Business communication. In Bargiela-Chiappini, F., ed., The Handbook of Business Discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 305–316.Google Scholar
Louhiala-Salminen, L. and Kankaanranta, A. (2011). Professional communication in a global business context: The notion of global communicative competence. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 54, 244–262.Google Scholar
Louhiala-Salminen, L., Charles, M., and Kankaanranta, A. (2005). English as a lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: Two case companies. English for Specific Purposes, 24(4), 401–421.Google Scholar
Ly, A. (2016). Internal email communication in the workplace: Is there an “East-West divide”? Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(1), 37–70.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, I. (2014). English as a Lingua Franca: Theorizing and Teaching English. New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
Mak, C. N. B. (2019). Doing business and constructing identities through small talk in workplace instant messaging. Pragmatics and Society, 10(4), 559–583.Google Scholar
Mak, C. N. B., Chui, H. L., and Liu, Y. (2012). Instant messaging and microblogging: Situated-learning platforms for educationists and workplace mentors. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 392–399.Google Scholar
Marsden, E. (2020). “Music for your breakfast”: Relational work in a sole trader’s intercultural business emails. In Archer, D., K. Grainger, and P. Jagodziński, eds., Politeness in Professional Contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 225–248.Google Scholar
Marsden, L. and Kádár, D. (2017). The pragmatics of mimesis: A case study of intercultural email communication. FLEKS-Scandinavian Journal of Intercultural Theory and Practice, 4(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McKeown, J. and Zhang, Q. (2015). Socio-pragmatic influence on opening salutation and closing valediction of British workplace email. Journal of Pragmatics, 85, 92–107.Google Scholar
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89–118.Google Scholar
Meierkord, C. (2002). “Language stripped bare” or “linguistic masala”? Culture in lingua franca conversation. In Knapp, K. and Meierkord, C., eds., Lingua Franca Communication. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 109–133.Google Scholar
Mendes, de O. M. (2020). Face and cultural conceptualizations in German–Brazilian business exchanges. International Journal of Language and Culture, 7(1), 63–83.Google Scholar
Millot, P. (2017). Inclusivity and exclusivity in English as a Business Lingua Franca: The expression of a professional voice in email communication. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 59–71.Google Scholar
Mori, J. (2003). The construction of interculturality: A study of initial encounters between Japanese and American students. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(2), 143–184.Google Scholar
Morpeth, E. V. den (2012). Politeness and gender in Belgian organisational emails. In Gillaerts, P., de Groot, E., Dieltjens, S., Heynderickx, P., and Jacobs, G., eds., Researching Discourse in Business Genres. Cases and Corpora. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 33–52.Google Scholar
Munter, M., Rogers, P. S., and Rymer, J. (2003). Business e-mail: Guideline for users. Business Communication Quarterly, 66, 26–40.Google Scholar
Nardi, B., Steve, W., and Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and outeraction: Instant messaging in Action. In CSCW’00 Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM Press, pp. 79–88.Google Scholar
Ngai, S-B. C. and Singh, G. R. (2017). Move structure and communication style of leaders’ messages in corporate discourse: A cross-cultural perspective. Discourse and Communication, 11(3), 276–295.Google Scholar
Nishiyama, K. (2000). Doing Business with Japan: Successful Strategies for Intercultural Communication. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Ong, K. K., Wee, G., François, J., and Serwe, S. K. (2013). English shop signs in Singapore. English Today, 29(3), 19–25.Google Scholar
Ortaçtepe, D. and Okkalı, S.. (2021). Common ground and positioning in teacher–student interactions: Second language socialization in EFL classrooms. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(1), 53–82.Google Scholar
Orthaber, S. and Marquez Reiter, R. (2011). “Talk to the hand.” Complaints to a public transport company. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(15), 3860–3876.Google Scholar
Pennycook, A. (2017). The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. New York: Routledge Linguistics Classics.Google Scholar
Pilegaard, M. (1997). Politeness in written business discourse: A textlinguistic perspective on requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(2), 223–244.Google Scholar
Piller, I. (2011). Intercultural Communication: A Critical Reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L. (2005). Non-understanding in English as a lingua franca: Examples from a business context. Vienna English Working Papers, 14(2), 50–71.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M-L. (2017). Creativity, idiom use and metaphorical language in ELF. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W., and Dewey, M., eds., Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge, pp. 233–243.Google Scholar
Poncini, G. (2003). Multicultural business meetings and the role of languages other than English. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 24(1), 17–32.Google Scholar
Pullin, P. (2010). Small talk, rapport, and international communicative competence: Lessons to learn from BELF. Journal of Business Communication, 47, 455–476.Google Scholar
Pullin, P. (2013). Achieving comity: The role of linguistic stance in business English lingua franca (BELF) meetings. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2008). Participation and performance in international business meetings. English for Specific Purposes, 27(3), 338–360.Google Scholar
Roshid, M., Webb, S., and Chowdhury, R. (2018). English as a business lingua franca: A discursive analysis of business e-mails. International Journal of Business Communication, 55(3), 1–21.Google Scholar
Rowe, C. (2010). Status and email construction in three Hong Kong workplaces. In Taiwo, R., ed., Handbook of Research on Discourse Behavior and Digital Communication: Language Structures and Social Interaction. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 18–38.Google Scholar
Ruby, B., Matthew, Falk, Heine, F., Steven, J.. V. C., and Silberstein, O. (2012). Not all collectivisms are equal: Opposing preferences for ideal affect between East Asians and Mexicans. American Psychological Association, 12(6), 1206–1209.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.-C., and Yoon, G., eds., Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Methods and Applications. London: Sage Publications, pp. 85–119.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54, 93–105.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2016). ELF: English in a Global Context. In Murata, K., ed., Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts. London/New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 17–28.Google Scholar
Selvi, A. F. (2016). English as the language of market speak: Reflections from the linguistic landscape of Turkey. English Today, 32(4), 33–39.Google Scholar
Senkbeil, K. (2020). Idioms in intercultural communication: A cognitive and pragmatic perspective. International Journal of Language and Culture, 7(1), 38–62.Google Scholar
Skovholt, K., Grønning, A., and Kankaanranta, A. (2014). The communicative functions of emoticons in workplace e-mails. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(4), 780–797.Google Scholar
Smelser, N. J. (1992). Culture: Coherent or incoherent. In Munch, R. and Smelser, N. J., eds., Theory of Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 3–28.Google Scholar
Sobral, F., Carvalhal, E., and Almeida, F. (2008). The Influence of culture on negotiation styles of Brazilian executives. Management Research, 6(2), 107–119.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. and Xing, J. (2003). Managing rapport in intercultural business interactions: A comparison of two Chinese-British welcome meetings. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 24(1), 33–46.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking, 2nd ed. London: Continuum, pp. 11–47.Google Scholar
Stadler, S. (2019). Laughter and its functions in Japanese business communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 141, 16–27.Google Scholar
Stalpers, J. (1995). The expression of disagreement. In Ehlich, K. and Wagner, J., eds., The Discourse of Business Negotiation. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 275–289.Google Scholar
Starke-Meyerring, D. (2005). Meeting the challenges of globalization: A framework for global literacies in professional communication programs. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 19, 468–499.Google Scholar
Stephen, A. T. and Galak, J. (2012). The effects of traditional and social earned media on sales: A study of a microlending marketplace. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(5), 624–639.Google Scholar
Stieglitz, S. and Dang-Xuan, L. (2013). Emotions and information diffusion in social mediasentiment of microblogs and sharing behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(4), 217–248.Google Scholar
Sullivan, J. J. and Nonaka, I. (1986). The application of organizational learning theory to Japanese and American Management. Journal of International Business Studies, 17(3), 127–147.Google Scholar
Swales, J. and Feak, C. (2003). English in Today’s Research World: A Writing Guide. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Swales, J. (2004). Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Torelli, C. J. and Shavitt, S. (2010). Culture and concepts of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 703–723.Google Scholar
Trusov, M., Bucklin, R., and Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional marketing: Findings from an internet social networking site. Journal of Marketing, 73, 90–102.Google Scholar
Tsuchiya, K. and Handford, M. (2014). A corpus-driven analysis of repair in a professional ELF meeting: Not “letting it pass.” Journal of Pragmatics, 64, 117–131.Google Scholar
Varner, I. I. and Beamer, L. (1995). Intercultural Communication in the Global Workplace. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.Google Scholar
Varner, I. I. (2000). The theoretical foundation for intercultural business communication: A conceptual model. Journal of Business Communication, 37, 39–57.Google Scholar
Vertovec, S. (2006). The emergence of super-diversity in Britain. Centre on Migration, Policy and Society. Working Paper No. 25.Google Scholar
Wang, Q., Clegg, J., Gajewska-De Mattos, H., and Buckley, P. (2020). The role of emotions in intercultural business communication: Language standardization in the context of international knowledge transfer. Journal of World Business, 55(6), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2018.11.003.Google Scholar
Warren, M. (2016). Signaling intertextuality in business emails. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 26–37.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts: polish vs. English. Journal of Pragmatics, 9(23), 145–178.Google Scholar
Woydack, J. and Rampton, B. (2016). Text trajectories in a multilingual call centre: The linguistic ethnography of a calling script. Language in Society, 45(5), 709–732.Google Scholar
Woydack, J. E. (2014). Standardisation and script trajectories in a London call centre: An ethnography of a multilingual outbound call centre. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, King’s College London.Google Scholar
Yadav, M. S. and Pavlou, P. A. (2014). Marketing in computer-mediated environments: Research synthesis and new directions. Journal of Marketing, 78(1), 20–40.Google Scholar
Yamada, H. (1990). Topic management and turn distribution in business meetings: American versus Japanese strategies. Text and Talk, 10(3), 271–295.Google Scholar
Yamada, H. (1992). American and Japanese Discourse: A Comparison of Interactional Styles. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Yamada, H., Kelm, R., Orlando, R., and Victor, A. D. (2017). The Seven Keys to Communicating in Japan: An Intercultural Approach. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Yuan, R. (1997). Yin/Yang principle and the relevance of externalism and paralogic rhetoric to intercultural communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11, 297–320.Google Scholar
Zaidman, N. and Holmes, P. (2009). Business communication as cultural text: Exchange and feedback of promotional video clips. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 535–549.Google Scholar
Zaidman, N. (2001). Cultural codes and language strategies in business communication: Interactions between Israeli and Indian businesspeople. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(3), 408–441.Google Scholar
Zhu, H. (2003) Globalization and new ELT challenges in China. English Today, 76(19/4), 36–41.Google Scholar
Zhu, H. (2014). Exploring Intercultural Communication: Language in Action. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zhu, Y. (2001). Using a knowledge-based approach to help develop student intercultural competence in industry. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(3), 102–109.Google Scholar
Zhu, L. (2016). A comparative look at Chinese and American stereotypes. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 42(1), 20–37.Google Scholar
Zhu, Y., Ma, L., and Jiang, R. (2019). A cross-cultural study of English and Chinese online platform reviews: A genre-based view. Discourse and Communication, 13(3), 342–365.Google Scholar
References
Aline, D. and Hosoda, Y. (2021). Deployment of the formulaic utterance “How about ∼” in task-based second language classroom discussions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4): 425–446. doi:10.1515/ip-2021-4001.Google Scholar
Al Shamsi, H., Almutairi, A. G., Al Mashrafi, S., and Al Kalbani, T. (2020). Implications of language barriers for healthcare: A systematic review. Oman Medical Journal, 35(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5001/OMJ.2020.40.Google Scholar
Alizadeh, S. and Chavan, M. (2020). Perceived cultural distance in healthcare in immigrant intercultural medical encounters. International Migration, 58(4), 231–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12680.Google Scholar
Almutairi, K. (2015). Culture and language differences as a barrier to provision of quality care by the health workforce in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Medical Journal, 36(4), 425–431. https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2015.4.10133.Google Scholar
Anderson, L. J. and Cirillo, L. (2020). The emergence and relevance of cultural difference in mediated health interactions. Health Communication, 36(9), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1735696.Google Scholar
Angelelli, C. (2004). Medical Interpreting and Cross-cultural Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, D. (2012). Intercultural rhetoric and intercultural communication. In Jackson, J., ed., Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication. Oxford: Routledge, pp. 116–129.Google Scholar
Auer, P. and Kern, F. (2001). Three ways of analysing communication between East and West Germans as intercultural communication. In Di Luzio, A., Günthner, S., and Orletti, F., eds., Culture in Communication: Analyses of Intercultural Situations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 89–116.Google Scholar
Baraldi, C. and Gavioli, L. (2012a). Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Baraldi, C. and Gavioli, L. (2012b). Introduction: Understanding coordination in interpreter-mediated interaction. In Baraldi, C. and Gavioli, L., eds., Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Baraldi, C. and Gavioli, L. (2016). On professional and non-professional interpreting in healthcare services: The case of intercultural mediators. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 33.Google Scholar
Baraldi, C. and Gavioli, L. (2017). Intercultural mediation and “(non)professional” interpreting in Italian healthcare institutions. In Antonini, R., Cirillo, L., Rossato, L., and Torresi, I., eds., Nonprofessional Interpreting and Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 83–106.Google Scholar
Baraldi, C. and Gavioli, L. (2020). Effective communication and knowledge distribution in healthcare interaction with migrants. Health Communication, 36(9), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1735701.Google Scholar
Belpoliti, F. and Pérez, M. E. (2016). Giving advice in medical Spanish: Pragmatic and intercultural competence in the Spanish for the health professions curriculum. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 3(2), 127–142. doi: 10.1080/23247797.2016.1251780.Google Scholar
Berkman, N. D., Davis, T. C., and McCormack, L. (2010). Health literacy: What is it? Journal of Health Communication, 15(2), 9–19. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2010.499985.Google Scholar
Bigi, S. (2016). Communicating (with) Care: A Linguistic Approach to the Study of Interactions in Chronic Care Settings. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Bigi, S. and Rossi, M. G. (2020). Considering mono- and multilingual interactions on a continuum: An analysis of interactions in medical settings. In Hohenstein, C. and Lévy-Tödter, M., eds., Multilingual Healthcare: A Global View on Communicative Challenges. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, pp. 11–37. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-27120-6_2.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. and Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8(2), 165–179.Google Scholar
Bromme, R., Jucks, R., and Runde, A. (2005). Barriers and biases in computer-mediated expert-layperson-communication. In Bromme, R., Hesse, F., and Spada, H., eds., Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication. Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 89–118. doi: 10.1007/0-387-24319-4_5.Google Scholar
Candlin, C. N. and Candlin, S. (2003). Healthcare communication: A problematic site for applied linguistics research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 23(8), 134–154. doi: 10.1017/S0267190503000230.Google Scholar
Clark, H. and Brennan, S. (1991). Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L., Levine, J., and Teasley, S., eds., Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington: American Psychological Association, pp. 127–149.Google Scholar
Cortabarria, B. (2015). The role of translators and interpreters in hybrid English–Spanish contexts in the USA. Language and Intercultural Communication, 15(3), 407–423. doi: 10.1080/14708477.2015.1015345.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M. (1985). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cox, A. (2017). The Dynamics of (Mis)communication in Language Discordant Multi-party Consultations in the Emergency Department. Zelzate: University Press. https://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/640782.Google Scholar
Cox, A. and Li, S. (2020). The medical consultation through the lenses of language and social interaction theory. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 25, 241–257. doi: 10.1007/s10459-018-09873-2.Google Scholar
Crawford, T., Candlin, S., and Roger, P. (2017). New perspectives on understanding cultural diversity in nurse–patient communication. Collegian, 24(1), 63–69.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. and Scott, M. L. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning, 47(1), 173–210. doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.51997005.Google Scholar
Edwards, M., Davies, M., and Edwards, A. (2009). What are the external influences on information exchange and shared decision-making in healthcare consultations: A meta-synthesis of the literature. Patient Education and Counseling, 75(1), 37–52. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.09.025.Google Scholar
Elder, C.-H. F. (2019). Negotiating what is said in the face of miscommunication. In Stalmaszczyk, P., ed., Philosophical Insights into Pragmatics. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 105–126.Google Scholar
Farini, F. (2013). The pragmatics of emotions in interlinguistic healthcare settings. Research in Language, 11(2), 163–187. doi: 10.2478/v10015-012-0025-5.Google Scholar
Gardenswartz, L. and Rowe, A. (1998). Managing Diversity in Health Care: Proven Tools and Activities for Leaders and Trainers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gavioli, L. and Wadensjö, C. (2021). Reflections on doctor question–patient answer sequences and on lay perceptions of close translation. Health Communication, 36(9), 1–11. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2020.1735699.Google Scholar
Gerchow, L., Burka, L. R., Miner, S. and Squires, A. (2021). Language barriers between nurses and patients: A scoping review. Patient Education and Counseling, 104(3), 534–553. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.09.017.Google Scholar
Gerwing, J., Indseth, T., and Gulbrandsen, P. (2016). A microanalysis of the clarity of information in physicians’ and patients’ discussions of treatment plans with and without language barriers. Patient Education and Counseling, 99(4), 522–529. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.10.012.Google Scholar
Gerwing, J. and Li, S. (2019). Body-oriented gestures as a practitioner’s window into interpreted communication. Social Science and Medicine, 233, 171–180. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.05.040.Google Scholar
Gibson, D. and Zhong, M. (2005). Intercultural communication competence in the healthcare context. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(5), 621–634. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.008.Google Scholar
Giuliani, E., Melegari, G., Carrieri, F., and Barbieri, A. (2020). Overview of the main challenges in shared decision making in a multicultural and diverse society in the intensive and critical care setting. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 26(2), 520–523. doi: 10.1111/jep.13300.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, A. D. (1980). Mishearings, misunderstandings, and other nonsuccesses in talk: A plea for redress of speaker‐oriented bias. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 31–74.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Contextualization and understanding. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 229–252.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. and Cook-Gumperz, J. (2012). Interactional sociolinguistics:Perspectives on intercultural communication. In Bratt Paulston, C., Kiesling, S. F., and Rangel, E. S., eds., The Handbook of Intercultural Discourse and Communication. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell, pp. 63–76.Google Scholar
Hamilton, J. and Woodward-Kron, R. (2010). Developing cultural awareness and intercultural communication through multimedia: A case study from medicine and the health sciences. System, 38(4), 560–568.Google Scholar
Hardin, K. (2013). What goes unsaid: Expression of complaints and advice about health in Eastern Ecuador. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(4), 569–591. doi: 10.1515/ip-2013-0027.Google Scholar
Healey, P. G. T. and Thirlwell, M. (2002). Analysing multi-modal communication: Repair-based measures of communicative co-ordination. In Kuppevelt, J. V., Dybkjær, L., and Bernsen, N. O., eds., Proceedings of the International CLASS Workshop on Natural, Intelligent and Effective Interaction in Multimodal Dialogue Systems. Copenhagen: University of Southern Denmark, pp. 83–92.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2011). Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In Steensig, J., Mondada, L., and Stivers, T., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–183. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684.Google Scholar
Hicks, A., and Lloyd, A. (2016). It takes a community to build a framework: Information literacy within intercultural settings. Journal of Information Science, 42(3), 334–343. doi: 10.1177/0165551516630219.Google Scholar
Hlavac, J., Xu, Z., and Yong, D. X. (2015). Intercultural pragmatics at work: (Self-)perceptions of intercultural behavior of Chinese and English speakers and interpreters in healthcare interactions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 91–118. doi: 10.1515/ip-2015-0004.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hsieh, E. (2006). Understanding medical interpreters: Reconceptualizing bilingual health communication. Health Communication, 20(2), 177–186. doi: 10.1207/s15327027hc2002_9.Google Scholar
Hudelson, P. (2005). Improving patient-provider communication: Insights from interpreters. Family Practice, 22(3), 311–316. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmi015.Google Scholar
Humphreys-Jones, C. (1986). An Investigation of the Types and Structure of Misunderstandings. Newcastle: Newcastle University Press.Google Scholar
Jain, P. and Krieger, J. L. (2011). Moving beyond the language barrier: The communication strategies used by international medical graduates in intercultural medical encounters. Patient Education and Counseling, 84(1), 98–104. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.06.022.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. (2005). Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199261987.001.0001.Google Scholar
Kai, J., Beavan, J., and Faull, C. (2011). Challenges of mediated communication, disclosure and patient autonomy in cross-cultural cancer care. British Journal of Cancer, 105(7), 918–924. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.318.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2006). Formulaic language in Franca, English Lingua. In Kecskes, I. and Horn, L., eds., Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 191–218.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2015). Intracultural communication and intercultural communication: Are they different? International Review of Pragmatics, 7, 171–194. doi: 10.1163/18773109-00702002.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2016). Can intercultural pragmatics bring some new insight into pragmatic theories? In Mey, J. and Capone, A., eds., Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Cham: Springer, pp. 43–69.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17(2), 331–355. doi: 10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Zhang, F. (2013). On the dynamic relations between common ground and presupposition. In Capone, A., Lo Piparo, F., and Carapezza, M., eds., Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics (Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 2). Cham: Springer, pp. 375–395. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-01014-4_15.Google Scholar
Krystallidou, D., Langewitz, W. and van den Muijsenbergh, M. (2020). Multilingual healthcare communication: Stumbling blocks, solutions, recommendations. Patient Education and Counseling, 104(3), 512–516. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.09.015.Google Scholar
Labov, W. and Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Légaré, F., Ratté, S., Gravel, K., and Graham, I. D. (2008). Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: Update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Patient Education and Counseling, 73(3), 526–535. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.018.Google Scholar
Louis, Sasha G., and Khoudary, Rana N. (2021). Lebanese conversational style and cultural values. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(5), 571–604. doi:10.1515/ip-2021-5001.Google Scholar
Macagno, F. (2018). Evidence and presumptions for analyzing and detecting misunderstandings. Pragmatics and Cognition, 24(2), 263–296.Google Scholar
Macagno, F. and Rossi, M. G. (2019). Metaphors and problematic understanding in chronic care communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 151, 103–117. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.010.Google Scholar
Macagno, F. and Rossi, M. G. (2021). The communicative functions of metaphors between explanation and persuasion. In Macagno, F. and Capone, A., eds., Inquiries in Philosophical Pragmatics. Theoretical developments. Cham: Springer¸ pp. 171–191.Google Scholar
Magaña, D. (2019). Cultural competence and metaphor in mental healthcare interactions: A linguistic perspective. Patient Education and Counseling, 102(12), 2192–2198. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.06.010.Google Scholar
McCabe, R. and Healey, P. G. T. (2018). Miscommunication in doctor–patient communication. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10(2), 409–424. doi: 10.1111/tops.12337.Google Scholar
McRoy, S. and Hirst, G. (1995). The repair of speech act misunderstandings by abductive inference. Computational Linguistics, 21(4), 435–478.Google Scholar
Mishler, E. G. (1984). The Discourse of Medicine: Dialectics of Medical Interviews, Vol. III. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Noels, K. A., Yashima, T., and Zhang, R. (2011). Language, identity and intercultural communication. In Jackson, J., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication. London: Routledge, pp. 52–66.Google Scholar
Penn, C. and Watermeyer, J. (2012). When asides become central: Small talk and big talk in interpreted health interactions. Patient Education and Counseling, 88(3), 391–398. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.06.016.Google Scholar
Penn, C. and Watermeyer, J. (2018). Communicating across Cultures and Languages in the Health Care Setting: Voices of Care. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-58100-6.Google Scholar
Piacentini, T., O’Donnell, C., Phipps, A., Jackson, I., and Stack, N. (2019). Moving beyond the “language problem”: Developing an understanding of the intersections of health, language and immigration status in interpreter-mediated health encounters. Language and Intercultural Communication, 19(3), 256–271. doi: 10.1080/14708477.2018.1486409.Google Scholar
Poel, K. Van De and Brunfaut, T. (2010). Medical communication in L1 and L2 contexts: Comparative modification analysis. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(1), 103–129. doi: 10.1515/iprg.2010.005.Google Scholar
Potter, N. (2000). Giving uptake. Social Theory and Practice, 26(3), 479–508. doi: 10.5840/soctheorpract200026315.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (2007). Intercultural communication in healthcare settings. In Knapp, K. and Antos, G., eds., Handbook of Intercultural Communication. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 243–262.Google Scholar
Roberts, C., Moss, B., Wass, V., Sarangi, S., and Jones, R. (2005). Misunderstandings: A qualitative study of primary care consultations in multilingual settings, and educational implications. Medical Education, 39(5), 465–475. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02121.x.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. and Sarangi, S. (2005). Theme oriented discourse analysis of medical encounters. Medical Education, 39(6), 632–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02171.x.Google Scholar
Rossi, M. G. (2021). Metaphors and persuasion in healthcare communication. Languages, 222(2), 1–18.Google Scholar
Rossi, M. G. and Macagno, F. (2020). Coding problematic understanding in patient–provider interactions. Health Communication, 35(12), 1487–1496. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2019.1652384.Google Scholar
Rossi, M. G., Menichetti, J., and Vegni, E. (2021). Problems of understanding in ART triadic interactions: A qualitative comparison of first and follow-up visits (submitted). Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–14. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.641998.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1995). Rules of conversational sequence. In Jefferson, G., ed., Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 3–11.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Jefferson, E., and Schegloff, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar
Sarangi, S. (1994). Intercultural or not? beyond celebration of cultural differences in miscommunication analysis. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 4(3), 409–427. doi: 10.1075/prag.4.3.05sar.Google Scholar
Sarangi, S. (2010). Healthcare interaction as an expert communicative system. In Streech, J., ed., New Adventures in Language and Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 167–198. doi: 10.1075/pbns.196.08sar.Google Scholar
Sarangi, S. (2012). The intercultural complex in healthcare encounters: A discourse analytical perspective. In Patil, N. G. and Lam, C. L. K., eds., Making Sense in Communication. Hong Kong: IMHSE Publication, pp. 13–24.Google Scholar
Sarangi, S. (2017). Mind the gap: “Communicative vulnerability” and the mediation of linguistic/cultural diversity in healthcare settings. In Coleman, H., ed., Multilingualisms and Development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 239–258.Google Scholar
Shah, R. and Ogden, J. (2006). “What’s in a face?” The role of doctor ethnicity, age and gender in the formation of patients’ judgements: An experimental study. Patient Education and Counseling, 60(2), 136–141. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2004.12.005.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sørensen, K., Van den Broucke, S., Fullam, J., Doyle, G., Pelikan, J., Slonska, Z., et al. (2012). Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health, 12(1), 80. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-80.Google Scholar
Sousa, C. M. P. and Bradley, F. (2006). Cultural distance and psychic distance: Two peas in a pod? Journal of International Marketing, 14(1), 49–70.Google Scholar
Street, R. L. J. (2013). How clinician–patient communication contributes to health improvement: Modeling pathways from talk to outcome. Patient Education and Counseling, 92(3), 286–291. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.05.004.Google Scholar
Street, R. L. J. and Haidet, P. (2011). How well do doctors know their patients? Factors affecting physician understanding of patients’ health beliefs. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26(1), 21–27. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1453-3.Google Scholar
Street Jr., R. L., Makoul, G., Arora, N. K., and Epstein, R. M. (2009). How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician–patient communication to health outcomes. Patient Education and Counseling, 74(3), 295–301. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.015.Google Scholar
Street, R. L. J., O’Malley, K. J., Cooper, L. A., and Haidet, P. (2008). Understanding concordance in patient–physician relationships: Personal and ethnic dimensions of shared identity. Annals of Family Medicine, 6(3), 198–205. doi: 10.1370/afm.821.Google Scholar
Suurmond, J. and Seeleman, C. (2006). Shared decision-making in an intercultural context: Barriers in the interaction between physicians and immigrant patients. Patient Education and Counseling, 60(2), 253–259. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.01.012.Google Scholar
Teal, C. R. and Street, R. L. J. (2009). Critical elements of culturally competent communication in the medical encounter: A review and model. Social Science and Medicine, 68(3), 533–543. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.10.015.Google Scholar
Ting-Toomey, S. (2015). Intercultural and intergroup communication competence. In Hannawa, A. and Spitzberg, B., eds., Handbook of Communication Science: Communication Competence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 503–538.Google Scholar
Trogen, B. (2017). The evidence-based metaphor. JAMA, 317(14), 1411–1412. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.17219.Google Scholar
Ulrey, K. L. and Amason, P. (2001). Intercultural communication between patients and health care providers: An exploration of intercultural communication effectiveness, cultural sensitivity, stress, and anxiety. Health Communication, 13(4), 449–463. doi: 10.1207/S15327027HC1304_06.Google Scholar
Wang, Xiaowen, Ahrens, Kathleen, and Huang, Chu-Ren (2022). The distance between illocution and perlocution: A tale of different pragmemes to call for social distancing in two cities. Intercultural Pragmatics, 19(1): 1–33. doi:10.1515/ip-2022-0001.Google Scholar
Watermeyer, J., Thwala, Z., and Beukes, J. (2020). Medical terminology in intercultural health interactions. Health Communication, 36(9), 1–10. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2020.1735700.Google Scholar
Watson, B. M., Hewett, D. G., and Gallois, C. (2012). Culture and health care. In Jackson, J., ed., The Handbook of Intergroup Communication. New York: Routledge, pp. 293–305.Google Scholar
Werkmann Horvat, A., Bolognesi, M., and Kohl, K. (2021). The status of conventional metaphorical meaning in the L2 lexicon. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 447–467.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (1999). Misunderstandings and explicit/implicit communication. Pragmatics, 9(4), 487–517. doi: 10.1075/prag.9.4.01yus.Google Scholar
Zolnierek, K. B. H. and Dimatteo, M. R. (2009). Physician communication and patient adherence to treatment: A meta-analysis. Medical Care, 47(8), 826–834. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31819a5acc.Google Scholar
References
Aline, D. and Hosoda, Y. (2021). Deployment of the formulaic utterance “how about∼” in task-based second language classroom discussions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 425–446.Google Scholar
Alonso-Almeida, F. and Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2017). Variation and function of modals in linguistics and engineering research papers in English. In Marín Arrese, J. J. Lavid-López, and M. Carretero, eds., Evidentiality and Modality in European Languages: Discourse-Pragmatic Perspectives. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 277–309.Google Scholar
Baker, W. (2011). Intercultural awareness: Modelling an understanding of cultures in intercultural communication through English as a lingua franca. Language and Intercultural Communication, 11(3), 197–214.Google Scholar
Bennet, K. (2009). English academic style manuals: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 43–54.Google Scholar
Bolton, K. (2006). World Englishes today. In Kachru, B. B., ed., The Handbook of World Englishes. London: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 240–269.Google Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2013). A contrastive study of the variation of sentence connectors in academic English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(3), 192–202.Google Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2014). Cross-cultural variation in the use of modal verbs in academic English. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 27, 153–166.Google Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2016a). A contrastive study of interactive metadiscourse in academic papers written in English and in Spanish. In Alonso, F. Almeida, L. Cruz García, and Ruiz, V. González, eds., Corpus-based Studies on Language Varieties. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 89–114.Google Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2016b). Mitigation of claims in medical research papers: A comparative study of English and Spanish writers. Communication and Medicine, 13, 249–261.Google Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2016c). A contrastive study of the hedges used by English, Spanish, and Chinese researchers in academic papers. In Alonso, F. Almeida, I. Ortega Barrera, E. Quintana Toledo, and M. Sánchez Cuervo, eds., Input a Word, Analyze the World: Selected Approaches to Corpus Linguistics. Devonshire: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 477–492.Google Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2019a). Intercultural analysis of English modal constructions in engineering academic papers. Odisea, 20, 75–90.Google Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2019b). Phraseology in specialised language: A contrastive analysis of mitigation in academic papers. In Corpas, G. and Mitkov, R., eds., Computational and Corpus-Based Phraseology. New York: Springer, pp. 61–72.Google Scholar
Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 291–304.Google Scholar
Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271–287.Google Scholar
Crompton, P. (1998). Identifying hedges: Definition or divination? English for Specific Purposes, 17(3), 303–311.Google Scholar
Crompton, P. (2012). Characterising hedging in undergraduate essays by Middle-Eastern students. The Asian ESP Journal, 8(2), 55–78.Google Scholar
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807–1825.Google Scholar
Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2016). Cross-cultural variation in the use of hedges and boosters in academic discourse. Prague Journal of English Studies, 5(1), 163–184.Google Scholar
Gillaerts, P. and Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 128–139.Google Scholar
Hinkel, E. (1999). Objectivity and credibility in L1 and L2 academic writing. In Hinkel, E., ed., Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 90–108.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal, 13(2), 9–28.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1983). Speaking English with the appropriate degree of conviction. In Brumfit, C., ed., Learning and Teaching Languages for Communication: Applied Linguistics Perspectives. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research, pp. 100–113.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8(3), 345–365.Google Scholar
Hopskinson, C. (2021). Realizations of oppositional speech acts in English: A contrastive analysis of discourse in L1 and L2 settings. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 163–202.Google Scholar
Hu, G. and Cao, F. (2011). Hedges and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795–2809.Google Scholar
Hu, G. and Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 12–25.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in scientific research articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251–281.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998b). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text & Talk, 18(3), 349–382.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998c). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437–455.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. and Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156–177.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1325–1353.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Politics of Academic English Language Policy. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification, and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the Outer Circle. In Quirk, R. and Widdowson, H., eds., English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. [1982] (1992). Teaching world Englishes. In Kachru, B. B., ed., The Other Tongue: English across Cultures. Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press, pp. 355–365.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2007). Formulaic language in English lingua franca. In Kecskes, I. and Horn, L. R., eds., Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 191–219.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2015). Intracultural communication and intercultural communication: Are they different? International Review of Pragmatics, 7, 171–194.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019a). Editorial to the special issue “Current developments in intercultural pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics, 151, 74–75.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019b). Impoverished pragmatics? The semantics– pragmatics interface from an intercultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(5), 489–515.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Kirner-Ludwig, M. (2017). “It would never happen in my country I must say”: A corpus-pragmatic study on Asian English learners’ preferred use of must and should. Corpus Pragmatics, 1, 91–134.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Kirner-Ludwig, M. (2019). “Odd structures” in English as a lingua franca discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 151, 76–90.Google Scholar
Lewin, B. A. (2005). Hedging: An exploratory study of authors’ and readers’ identification of “toning down” in scientific texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 163–178.Google Scholar
Liu, Ch. and Tseng, M. Y. (2021). Paradigmatic variation in hedging and boosting: A comparative study of discussions in narrative inquiry and grounded theory research. English for Specific Purposes, 61, 1–16.Google Scholar
Martín-Martín, P. (2008). The mitigation of scientific claims in research papers: A comparative study. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 133–152.Google Scholar
Martín-Martín, P. and León Pérez, I. K. (2014). Convincing peers of the value of one’s research: A genre analysis of rhetorical promotion in academic texts. English for Specific Purposes, 34, 1–13.Google Scholar
Millar, N., Salager-Meyer, F., and Budgell, B. (2019). “It is important to reinforce the importance of …”: “Hype” in reports of randomized controlled trials. English for Specific Purposes, 54, 139–151.Google Scholar
Moya Muñoz, P. and Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2018). Estrategias de intensificación en los comentarios digitales sobre noticias en español: Un análisis de la variación entre España y Chile. Spanish in Context, 15, 369–391.Google Scholar
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3068–3079.Google Scholar
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatic of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1–35.Google Scholar
Peacock, M. (2006). A cross-disciplinary comparison of boosting in research articles. Corpora, 1(1), 61–84.Google Scholar
Peng, K. and Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741–754.Google Scholar
Qin, W. and Uccello, P. (2019). Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 22–39.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2009). Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. World Englishes, 28(2), 236–245.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 133–158.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. and Widdowson, H. (2017). Thoughts on independent English. World Englishes, 36(3), 360–362.Google Scholar
Skorczynska, H. and Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2021). A cross-disciplinary study of verb boosters in research articles from engineering, medicine and linguistics: Frequency and co-text variations. Revista Signos: Estudios de Lingüística, 55(106), 576–599.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22, 58–78.Google Scholar
Uclés Ramada, G. (2020). Mitigation and boosting as face-protection functions. Journal of Pragmatics, 169, 206–218.Google Scholar
Vold, E. T. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 61–87.Google Scholar
Wang, J. and Jiang, F. (2018). Epistemic stance and authorial presence in scientific research writing: Hedges, boosters and self-mentions across disciplines and writer groups. In Mur-Dueñas, P. and Šinkūnienė, J., eds., Intercultural Perspectives on Research Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 195–216.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2006). Intercultural pragmatics and communication. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Limited, pp. 735–742.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of edges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50, 23–36.Google Scholar
Yli-Jokipii, H. and Jorgensen, P. E. F. (2004). Academic journalese for the Internet: A study of native English-speaking editors’ changes to texts written by Danish and Finish professionals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 341–359.Google Scholar
References
Adelman, H. (2005). Theories of genocide: The case of Rwanda. In Esses, V. M. and Vernon, R. A., eds., Explaining the Breakdown of Ethnic Relations: Why Neighbors Kill. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Online Library, pp. 193–222. www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/AdelmanTheoriesGenocide.pdf.Google Scholar
Albertazzi, D., Giovannini, A., and Seddone, A. (2018). “No regionalism please, we are Leghisti!” The transformation of the Italian Lega Nord under the leadership of Matteo Salvini. Regional and Federal Studies, 28(5), 645–671.Google Scholar
Attruia, F. and Sini, L. (2020). Thèses complotistes et fake news dans les discours d’extrême droite. In Cetro, R. and Sini, L., eds., Intox, Rumeurs, Fake News. Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 289–306.Google Scholar
Baider, F. and Constantinou, M. (2014). How to make people feel good when wishing hell: Golden Dawn and National Front discourse, emotions and argumentation. Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, 2, 179–210.Google Scholar
Baider, F. and Constantinou, M. (2017a). “At night we’ll come and find you, traitors.” Cybercommunication in the Greek-Cypriot ultra-nationalist space. In Hatzidaki, O., and Goutsos, D., eds., Greece in Crisis Combining Critical Discourse and Corpus Linguistics Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 413–454.Google Scholar
Baider, F. H. and Constantinou, M. (2017b). “Burn the antifa traitors at the stake …” Transnational political cyber-exchanges, proximisation of emotions. In Kecskes, I. and Assimakopoulos, A., eds., Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 75–102.Google Scholar
Baider, F. and Sini, L. (2021). Le complotisme “transnational” et le discours de haine: Le cas de Chypre et de l’Italie. Mots. Les langages du politique, 125, 15–34.Google Scholar
Baider, F. (2015). La parole inversée? Marine Le Pen et son identité-ressource langagière. Nouvelles Perspectives en Sciences Sociales (NPSS), 11(1), 217–252.Google Scholar
Baider, F. (2017). Thinking globally, acting locally: Mainstream supremacist concepts within a local socio-historical context. Journal of Aggression Language and Conflict, 5(2), 178–204.Google Scholar
Baider, F. (2020a). Pragmatics lost? Overview, synthesis and proposition in defining online hate speech. Pragmatics and Society, 11(2), 96–218.Google Scholar
Baider, F. (2020b). Obscurantisme et complotisme: Le mépris dans les débats en ligne consacrés à la vaccination. Lidil, 61, 1–19.Google Scholar
Bar-On, T. (2011). Transnationalism and the French Nouvelle Droite. Patterns of Prejudice, 45(3), 199–223. doi:10.1080/0031322X.2011.585013.Google Scholar
Bell, D. (1975). Power, Influence and Authority. New York/London/Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Braddock, K. and Horgan, J., (2015). Towards a guide for constructing and disseminating counter-narratives to reduce support for terrorism. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 39(5), 381–404.Google Scholar
Bronner, S. (2011). Critical Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bromley, R. (2018). The politics of displacement: The far-right narrative of Europe and its others. From the European South, 3, 13–26.Google Scholar
Byford, J. (2011). Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Caiani, M., and Kröll, P. (2015). The transnationalization of the extreme right and the use of the Internet. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 39(4), 331–351.Google Scholar
Cap, P. (2013). Proximization: The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Castanho, Silva B., Vegetti, F. and Littvay, L. (2017). The elite is up to something: Exploring the relation between populism and belief in conspiracy theories. Swiss Political Science Review, 23(4), 423–443.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Critical metaphor analysis. In Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. London: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 243–253.Google Scholar
Chilton, P. A. and Schäffner, C. (1997). Discourse and politics. In van Dijk, T. A., ed., Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage, pp. 206–230.Google Scholar
Chilton, P. (2005). Missing links in mainstream CDA. In Wodak, R. and Chilton, P., eds., A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 19–52.Google Scholar
Cíbik, M. and Hardoš, P. (2020). Conspiracy theories and reasonable pluralism. European Journal of Political Theory, 0(0), 1–21.Google Scholar
Douglas, K, Sutton, R., and Cichocka, A. (2017). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 538–542.Google Scholar
Douglas, K. and Sutton, R. (2018). Why conspiracy theories matter: A social psychological analysis. European Review of Social Psychology, 9(1), 256–298.Google Scholar
Edelman, M. (1988). Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ekström, M., Patrona, M., and Thornborrow, J. (2018). Right-wing populism and the dynamics of style: A discourse-analytic perspective on mediated political performances. Palgrave Communications, 4(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2018). CDA as dialectical reasoning. In Flowerdew, J. and Richardson, J. E., eds., Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 13–25.Google Scholar
Fielitz, M. and Laloire, L. Lotte, (2016). Trouble on the Far Right: Contemporary Right-Wing Strategies and Practices in Europe. Bielefeld: Transcript-Verlag.Google Scholar
Froio, C. and Ganesh, B., (2019). The transnationalisation of far-right discourse on Twitter. European Societies, 21(4), 513–539. doi: 10.1080/14616696.2018.1494295.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. (2019). Hearing hate speech primes your brain for hateful actions. The Conversation, January 10, 2019 (https://theconversation.com/hearing-hate-speech-primes-your-brain-for-hateful-actions-107336).Google Scholar
Gruzd, A. and May, P. (2020). Going viral: How a single tweet spawned a COVID-19 conspiracy theory on Twitter. Big Data and Society, 7(2), 1–9.Google Scholar
Imhoff, R. (2015). Beyond (right‐wing) authoritarianism. In Bilewicz, M., Cichocka, A., and Soral, W, eds., Psychology of Conspiracy Theory. London: Routledge, pp. 122–142.Google Scholar
Jagers, J. and Walgrave, S. (2007). Populism as political communication style: An empirical study of political parties discourse in Belgium. European Journal of Political Research, 46, 319–345.Google Scholar
Janksen, H. and van Leeuwen, M. (2021). The presentational dimension of Geert Wilders’s populist argumentative style. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 10(1), 121–143.Google Scholar
Keating, John. (2021). Populist discourse and active metaphors in the 2016 US presidential elections. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4): 499–531.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling context: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 385–406.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2011). Interculturality and intercultural pragmatics. In Jackson, J., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Intercultural Communication. London: Routledge, pp. 67–84.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17, 331–355.Google Scholar
Kreis, R. (2017). #refugeesnotwelcome: Anti-refugee discourse on Twitter. Discourse and Communication, 11(5), 498–514.Google Scholar
Krekó, P. and Mayer, G. (2015). Transforming Hungary – together? An analysis of the Fidesz–Jobbik relationship. In Minkenberg, M., ed., Transforming the Transformation? The East European Radical Right in the Political Process. London: Routledge, pp. 183–205.Google Scholar
Krekó, P. (2020) “The stolen transition”: Conspiracy theories in post-communist and post-democratic Hungary. Social Psychological Bulletin, 14(4). doi: 10.32872/spb.v14i4.232.Google Scholar
Laclau, E. (2005). The future of radical democracy. In Tønder, L., and Thomassen, L., Radical Democracy: Politics between Abundance and Lack. Manchester/New-York: University of Manchester, pp. 256–262.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.Google Scholar
Lamour, C. and Varga, R. (2020). The border as a resource in right-wing populist discourse: Viktor Orbán and the diasporas in a multi-scalar Europe. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 35(3), 335–350.Google Scholar
Langenbacher, N. and Schellenberg, B. (2011). Is Europe on the Right Path? Right-Wing Extremism and Right-Wing Populism in Europe. Berlin: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.Google Scholar
Matsuda, M-. J. (1989). Public response to racist speech: Considering the victim’s story. Michigan Law Review, 87(8), 2320–2381.Google Scholar
Moore, A. (2016). Conspiracy and conspiracy theories in democratic politics. Critical Review, 28(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Miller, J. M. (2020). Psychological, political, and situational factors combine to boost COVID-19 conspiracy theory beliefs. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 53, 327–334.Google Scholar
Mudde, C. and Kaltwasser Rovira, C. (2013). Populism. In Freeden, M., Sargent, L., and Stears, M., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 493–512.Google Scholar
Mudde, C. and Kaltwasser Rovira, C. (2017). A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mudde, C. (2007). Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mudde, C. (2010). The populist radical right: A pathological normalcy. West European Politics, 33, 1167–1186. doi: 10.1080/01402382.2010.508901.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2007). What role do metaphors play in racial prejudice? The function of anti-semitic imagery in Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” Patterns of Prejudice, 41(1), 21–43.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2015). Dehumanizing metaphors in UK immigrant debates in press and online media. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 3(1), 41–56.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2017). Truth, lies and figurative scenarios: Metaphors at the heart of Brexit. Journal of Language and Politics, 16(5), 641–657.Google Scholar
Nicolas, L. (2014). L’évidence du complot: un défi à l’argumentation. Douter de tout pour ne plus douter du tout. Argumentation et Analyse du Discourse, 13. Available online at journals.openedition.org/aad/1833. doi: 10.4000/aad.1833.Google Scholar
O’Brien, G. (2003). Indigestible food, conquering hordes, and waste materials: Metaphors of immigrants and the early immigration restriction debate in the United States. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(1), 33–47.Google Scholar
Perrez, J. and Reuchamps, M. (2015). The “Belgian Tetris.” Assessing the political impact of metaphors on citizens’ perception of and attitude towards Belgian federalism. Metaphor and the Social World, 5(2), 223–244.Google Scholar
Plenta, P. (2020). Conspiracy theories as a political instrument: Utilization of anti-Soros narratives in Central Europe. Contemporary Politics, 26(5), 512–530.Google Scholar
Randour, F., Perrez, J., and Reuchamps, M. (2020). Twenty years of research on political discourse: A systematic review and directions for future research. Discourse and Society, 31(4), 428–443.Google Scholar
Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Santa Ana, O. (1999). “Like an animal I was treated”: Anti-immigrant metaphor in US public discourse. Discourse and Society, 10(2), 191–224.Google Scholar
Sárosi, P. (2020). The Great Replacement: A conspiracy theory shared by the Christchurch terrorist and Orbán’s government. Autocracy Analyst: Reporting on the Role of Authoritarian Rule in Hungary. autocracyanalyst.net/greatreplacement/.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (2009). Crossing boundaries: The nexus of time, space, person and place in narrative. Language in Society, 38(4), 421–445.Google Scholar
Soral, W., Bilewicz, M., and Winiewski, M. (2018). Exposure to hate speech increases prejudice through desensitization. Aggressive Behavior, 44(2), 136–146. doi: 10.1002/ab.21737.Google Scholar
Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., and Bachman, G. (1999). Prejudice toward immigrants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(11), 2221–2237.Google Scholar
Stephan, W. G. and Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In Oskamp, S., ed., Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 23–45.Google Scholar
Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., and Morrison, K. R. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In Nelson, T. D., ed., Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination. Milton Park: Taylor and Francis, pp. 43–59.Google Scholar
Szilágyi, A. and Bozóki, A. (2015). Playing it again in post-communism: The revolutionary rhetoric of Viktor Orbán in Hungary. Advances in the History of Rhetoric, 18, S153–S166.Google Scholar
Taguieff, P.-A. (2005). La foire aux “Illuminés” : Ésotérisme, théorie du complot, extrémisme. Paris: Mille et une nuits.Google Scholar
van Prooijen, J.-W. and Douglas, K. (2018). Belief in conspiracy theories: Basic principles of an emerging research domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 897–908.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse and Society, 6(2), 243–289.Google Scholar
Varga, R. (2020). Au croisement des contre-discours, Viktor Orbán, figure centrale de la campagne des élections européennes de 2019. In Maarek, Ph. J. and Pélissier, N., eds., L’Europe au défi des populismes nationaux: La communication politique centrifuge des élections de 2019. Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 93–113.Google Scholar
Waller, J. (2002). Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Whitson, J., Galinksy, A., and Kay, A. (2014). The emotional roots of conspiratorial perceptions, system justification, and belief in the paranormal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 89–95. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.09.002.Google Scholar
Wieviorka, M. (2017). Face à la “postvérité” et au “complotisme.” Socio, 8, 81–96. journals.openedition.org/socio/2728. doi: 10.4000/socio.2728.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. (2015). The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wohlfeld, M. (2014). Is migration a security issue? In Grech, O., and Wohlfeld, M., eds., Migration in the Mediterranean: Human Rights, Security and Development Perspectives. Msida: Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies, pp. 61–77.Google Scholar
Zollo, F. and Quatrociocchi, W. (2018). Disinformation spreading on Facebook. In Lehman, S. and Ahn, Y. Y., eds., Complex Spreading Phenomena on Social Systems. Basingstoke: Springer Nature, pp. 177–196.Google Scholar