Austin, J. L. ([1962] 1975). How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed. Edited by Urmson, J. O. and Sbisà, M., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A socio-cultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4/5), 585–614.Google Scholar

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

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

Culpeper, J. (2010). Historical sociopragmatics. In Jucker, A. H. and Taavistainen, I., eds., Historical Pragmatics. Vol. 5 of Handbooks of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J., Crawshaw, R. and Harrison, J. (2008). ‘Activity types’ and ‘discourse types’: Mediating ‘advice’ in interactions between foreign language assistants and their supervisors in schools in France and England. Multilingua, 27, 297–324.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. and Haugh, M. (2014). Pragmatics and the English Language. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Dittmar, N. (1997). Grundlagen der Soziolinguisti. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar

Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (1992). Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2015). The Language of Service Encounters: A Pragmatic-Discursive Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Gudykunst, W. B. and Young, Y. K. (2003). Communicating with Strangers. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1989). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Holmes, J. (1998). Women’s role in language change: A place for quantification. In Warner, N., Ahlers, J., Bilmes, L., Oliver, M., Wertheim, S. and Chen, M., eds., Gender and Belief Systems: Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 1996. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group, pp. 313–30.Google Scholar

Holmes, J. (2018). Sociolinguistics vs. pragmatics. In Ilie, C. and Norrick, N. R., eds., Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–32.Google Scholar

Holmes, J. and Schnurr, S. (2005). Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 121–49.Google Scholar

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

Hoye, L. F. (2006). Applying pragmatics. In Mey, J. L., ed., Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 24–7.Google Scholar

Layder, D. (1994). Understanding Social Theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar

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

Leech, G. N. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. ([1979] 1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1995). Three levels of meaning. In Palmer, F. R., ed., Grammar and Meaning: Essays in Honour of John Lyons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 90–115.Google Scholar

Linell, P. and Thunqvist, D. P. (2003). Moving in and out of framings: Activity contexts in talks with young unemployed people within a training project. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 409–34.Google Scholar

Marmaridou, S. (2011). Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. In Bublitz, W. and Norrick, N. R., eds., Foundations of Pragmatics. Vol. 1 of Handbooks of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77–106.Google Scholar

Mey, J. L. (1998). Pragmatics. In Mey, J. L., ed., Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 716–37.Google Scholar

Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Mey, J. L. (2012). Societal pragmatics. In Chapelle, C. A., ed., The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Chichester, UK: John Wiley, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar

Mooney, A. (2004). Co-operation, violation and making sense. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1601–23.Google Scholar

Morris, C. W. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. In Neurath, O., ed., International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Vol. 1, No. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–59.Google Scholar

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

Terkourafi, M. (2005a). Pragmatic correlates of frequency of use: The case for a notion of ‘minimal context’. In Marmaridou, S., Nikiforidou, K. and Antonopoulou, E., eds., Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the Twenty-first Century. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 209–33.Google Scholar

Terkourafi, M. (2005b). Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture, 1(2), 237–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thomas, J. A. (1981). Pragmatic failure. Master’s thesis, University of Lancaster.Google Scholar

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

Thomas, J. A. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar

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

Wright, S. (1998). The politicization of ‘culture’. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 14(1), 7–15.Google Scholar

Allan, K. (2016). The reporting of slurs. In Capone, A., Kiefer, F. and Lo Piparo, F., eds., Indirect Reports and Pragmatics: Interdisciplinary Studies. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 211–32.Google Scholar

Ameka, F. K. and Terkourafi, M. (2019). What if … ? Imagining non-Western perspectives on pragmatic theory and practice. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 72–82.Google Scholar

Bach, K. and Harnish, R. M.  (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 145–60.Google Scholar

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

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

Danziger, E. (2011). Once more with feeling: A forbidden performance of the Great Speech of the Mopan Maya. Anthropological Quarterly, 84(1), 121–40.Google Scholar

Degen, J. and Tanenhaus, M. K. (2019). Constraint-based pragmatic processing. In Cummins, C. and Katsos, N., eds., Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 453–76.Google Scholar

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

Foucault,  M. (1978). The History of Sexuality. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar

Franke, M. and Degen, J. (2016). Reasoning in reference games: Individual- vs. population-level probabilistic modeling. PLoS ONE, 11(5), e0154854. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0154854CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Green, M. (2019). Organic meaning: An approach to communication with minimal appeal to minds. In Capone, A., Carapezza, M. and Lo Piparo, F., eds., Further Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy. Part II Theories and Applications. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 211–28.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. The Philosophical Review, 66, 377–88. Reprinted in: Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 213–23.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1969). Utterer’s meaning and intentions. The Philosophical Review, 78, 147–77. Reprinted in: Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 86–116.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58. Reprinted in: Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 22–40.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2002). The intuitive basis of implicature: Relevance Theoretic implicitness versus Gricean implying. Pragmatics, 12(2), 117–34.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. and Jaszczolt, K. (2012). Speaker intentions and intentionality. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

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

Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100.Google Scholar

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

Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Marwick, A. and boyd, d. m. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society, 13(1), 114–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Matsumoto, Y. (1989). Politeness and conversational universals: Observations from Japanese. Multilingua, 8, 207–21.Google Scholar

McCarthy, J. and Hayes, P. J. (1969). Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Machine Intelligence, 4, 463–502.Google Scholar

McNally, L. 2017. Scalar alternatives and scalar inference involving adjectives: A comment on van Tiel, et al. 2016. In Ostrove, J., Kramer, R. and Sabbagh, J., eds., Asking the Right Questions: Essays in Honor of Sandra Chung. Santa Cruz: University of California Santa Cruz, Linguistics Research Center, pp. 17–28.Google Scholar

Noveck, I. (2010). Inferential comprehension. In Cummings, L., ed., The Pragmatics Encyclopedia. London: Routledge, pp. 220–22.Google Scholar

Pinker, S., Nowak, M. A. and Lee, J. J. (2008). The logic of indirect speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(3), 833–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Robbins, J. and Rumsey, A. (2008). Introduction: Cultural and linguistic anthropology and the opacity of other minds. Anthropological Quarterly, 81(2), 407–20.Google Scholar

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

Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W. (1963). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. ([1986] 1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

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

Tannen, D. (1993). The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. In Tannen, D., ed., Gender and Conversational Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 165–88.Google Scholar

Tanner, D., Goldshtein, M. and Weissman, B. (2018). Individual differences in the real-time neural dynamics of language comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 68, 299–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Terkourafi, M. (2005). Pragmatic correlates of frequency of use: The case for a notion of ‘minimal context’. In Nikiforidou, K., Marmaridou, S. and Antonopoulou, E., eds., Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the 21st Century. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 209–33.Google Scholar

Terkourafi, M. (2014). The importance of being indirect: A new nomenclature for indirect speech. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 28(1), 45–70.Google Scholar

van Tiel, B., van Miltenburg, E., Zevakhina, N. and Geurts, B. (2016). Scalar diversity. Journal of Semantics, 33, 137–75.Google Scholar

Wharton, T. (2003). Natural pragmatics and natural codes. Mind and Language, 18 , 447–77.Google Scholar

Wharton, T. (2009). The Pragmatics of Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (1986). Inference and implicature in utterance interpretation. In Myers, T., Brown, K. and McGonigle, B., eds., Reasoning and Discourse Processes. London: Academic Press, pp. 241–63.Google Scholar

Woods, J. (2010). Inference. In Cummings, L., ed., The Pragmatics Encyclopedia. London: Routledge, pp. 218–20.Google Scholar

Ariel, M. (2016). Revisiting the typology of pragmatic interpretations. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(1), 1–35.Google Scholar

Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9, 119–53.Google Scholar

Arundale, R. B. (2008). Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 229–58.Google Scholar

Arundale, R. B. (2020). Communicating and Relating: Constituting Face in Everyday Interacting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. (1975). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Boulat, K. (2015). Hearer-oriented processes of strength assignment: A pragmatic model of commitment. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 29, 19–40.Google Scholar

Boulat, K. and Maillat, D. (2017). She said you said I saw it with my own eyes: A pragmatic account of commitment. In Blochowiak, J., Grisot, C., Durrleman, S. and Laenzlinger, C., eds., Formal Models in the Study of Language. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 261–79.Google Scholar

Brandom, R. B. (1994). Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

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

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

Clark, H. H. (1997). Dogmas of understanding. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 567–98.Google Scholar

De Brabanter, P. and Dendale, P. (2008). Commitment: The term and the notions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 22, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drew, P. (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25(1), 219–53.Google Scholar

Dynel, M. (2016). With or without intentions: Accountability and (un)intentional humour in film talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 95, 67–98.Google Scholar

Elder, C. (2019). Negotiating what is said in the face of miscommunication. In Stalmaszczyk, P., ed., Philosophical Insights into Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 107–26.Google Scholar

Elder, C. (2020). Trump vs. Clinton: Implicatures as public stance acts. In Berlin, L. N., ed., Positioning and Stance in Political Discourse. Wilmington, DE: Vernon Press, pp. 71–91.Google Scholar

Elder, C. and Haugh, M. (2018). The interactional achievement of speaker meaning: Towards a formal account of conversational inference. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(5), 593–625.Google Scholar

Elder, C. and Savva, E. (2018). Incomplete conditionals and the syntax-pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 138, 45–59.Google Scholar

Geurts, B. (2019a). Communication as commitment sharing: Speech acts, implicatures, common ground. Theoretical Linguistics, 45(1-2), 1–30.Google Scholar

Geurts, B. (2019b). Commitments continued. Theoretical Linguistics, 45(1-2), 111–25.Google Scholar

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

Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2008). Intention and diverging interpretings of implicature in the uncovered meat sermon. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 201–29.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2013). Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 48, 41–56.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2017). Prompting offers of assistance in interactions. Pragmatics and Society, 8(2), 183–207.Google Scholar

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

Jary, M. (2013). Two types of implicature: Material and behavioural. Mind and Language, 28(5), 638–60.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 385–406.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2010). The paradox of communication – socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society, 1, 50–73.CrossRefGoogle 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. 238–73.Google Scholar

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

Mazzarella, D., Reinecke, R., Noveck, I. and Mercier, H. (2018). Saying, presupposing and implicating: How pragmatics modulates commitment. Journal of Pragmatics, 133, 15–27.Google Scholar

Moeschler, J. (2013). Is a speaker-based pragmatics possible? Or how can a hearer infer a speaker’s commitment? Journal of Pragmatics, 48, 84–97.Google Scholar

Morency, P., Oswald, S. and de Saussure, L. (2008). Explicitness, implicitness and commitment attribution: A cognitive pragmatic perspective. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 22, 197–219.Google Scholar

Sanders, R. E. (1987). Cognitive Foundations of Calculated Speech. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Sanders, R. E. (2015). A tale of two intentions: Intending what an utterance means and intending what an utterance achieves. Pragmatics and Society, 6(4), 475–501.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A., Ochs, E. and Thompson, S. A. (1996). Introduction. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A. and Thompson, S. A., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–51.Google Scholar

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

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

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind‐reading. Mind and Language, 17(1-2), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (2015). Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 15, 117–49.Google Scholar

Terkourafi, M. (2014). The importance of being indirect: A new nomenclature for indirect speech. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 28, 45–70.Google Scholar

Allen, J. (1995). Natural Language Understanding. New York: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar

Antaki, C. and Kent, A. (2012). Telling people what to do (and, sometimes, why): Contingency, entitlement and explanation in staff requests to adults with intellectual impairments. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 876–89.Google Scholar

Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9(1), 119–53.Google Scholar

Arundale, R. B. (2020). Communicating and Relating. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.). (1984). Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Auer, P. (1992). Introduction: John Gumperz’ approach to contextualization. In Auer, P. and Di Luzio, A. (eds.), The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 1–38.Google Scholar

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

Benjamin, T. (2012). When problems pass us by: Using “you mean” to help locate the source of trouble. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 82–109.Google Scholar

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

Chafe, W. A. (2007). The Importance of Not Being Earnest: The Feeling behind Laughter and Humor. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

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

Clark, H. H. (1996b). Communities, commonalities, and communication. In Gumperz, J. and Levinson, S., eds., Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 324–55.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. and Brennan, S. A. (1991). Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M. and Teasley, S. D., eds., Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington, DC: APA Books, pp. 127–49.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. and Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 259–94.Google Scholar

Clift, R. (2016). Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cohen, P. R. and Perrault, E. (1979). Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts. Cognitive Science, 3(3), 177–212.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about social action. Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–47.Google Scholar

Craven, A. and Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419–42.Google Scholar

Curl, T. S. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(8), 1257–80.Google Scholar

Curl, T. S. and Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–53.Google Scholar

Davies, B. L., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A. J. (eds.). (2011). Situated Politeness. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Deppermann, A. (2011). Constructions vs. lexical items as sources of complex meanings. A comparative study of constructions with German verstehen. In Auer, P. and Pfänder, S., eds., Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 88–126.Google Scholar

Deppermann, A. (2014). Handlungsverstehen und Intentionszuschreibung in der Interaktion I: Intentionsbekundungen mit wollen. In Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Gilles, P., Spiekermann, H. and Streck, T., eds., Sprache im Gebrauch: räumlich, zeitlich, interaktional. Festschrift für Peter Auer. Heidelberg, Germany: Winter, pp. 309–26.Google Scholar

Deppermann, A. (2015). Retrospection and understanding in interaction. In Deppermann, A. and Günthner, S., eds., Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 57–94.Google Scholar

Deppermann, A. (2018a). Changes in turn-design over interactional histories – the case of instructions in driving school lessons. In Deppermann, A. and Streeck, J., eds., Time in Embodied Interaction: Synchronicity and Sequentiality of Multimodal Resources. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 293–324.Google Scholar

Deppermann, A. (2018b). Instruction practices in German driving lessons: Differential uses of declaratives and imperatives. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 265–82.Google Scholar

Deppermann, A. and Kaiser, J. (in press). Intention ascriptions as a means to coordinate own actions with others’ actions. In Deppermann, A. and Haugh, M., eds., Action Ascription. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Deppermann, A. and Haugh, M. (eds.) (2021). Action Ascription. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 470–520.Google Scholar

Drew, P. and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (eds.). (2014). Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.). (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–65.Google Scholar

Drew, P. and Sorjonen, M. L. (2011). Dialogue in institutional interactions. In van Dijk, T. A., ed., Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, 2nd ed. London: Sage, pp. 191–216.Google Scholar

Drew, P., Hepburn, A., Margutti, P. and Galatolo, R. (eds.). (2016). Apologies in discourse. Discourse Processes, 53(1–2), 114–31.Google Scholar

Duranti, A. (1988). Intentions, language, and social action in a Samoan context. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(1), 13–33.Google Scholar

Edwards, D. (2008). Intentionality and mens rea in police interrogations: the production of actions as crimes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 177–99.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. and Sidnell, J. (2017a). The concept of action in interaction. Discourse Studies, 19(5), 515–35.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. and Sidnell, J. (2017b). The Concept of Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. and Kockelman, P. (eds.). (2017). Distributed Agency, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Feilke, H. (1994). Common-Sense-Kompetenz. Überlegungen zu einer Theorie des »sympathischen« und »natürlichen« Meinens und Verstehens. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

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

Fetzer, A. (2017). Context. In Huang, Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 259–76.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. and Oishi, E. (eds.). (2011). Context and Contexts: Parts Meet Whole? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. (1989). Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In Dietrich, R. F. and Graumann, C. F., eds., Language Processing in Social Context. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 17–38.Google Scholar

Fox, B. A. (2007). Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies, 9(3), 299–318.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Golato, A. (2005). Compliments and Compliment Responses: Grammatical Structure and Sequential Organization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (2017). Co-operative Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessment and the construction of context. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 147–89.Google Scholar

Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Grosz, B. J. and Sidner, C. (1990). Plans for discourse. In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. and Pollack, M. E., eds., Intentions in Communications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 417–44.Google Scholar

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

Günthner, S. and Knoblauch, H. (1995). Culturally patterned speaking practices: The analysis of communicative genres. Pragmatics, 5(1), 1–32.Google Scholar

Haakana, M. (2001). Laughter as a patient’s resource: Dealing with delicate aspects of medical interaction. Text, 21(1–2), 187–219.Google Scholar

Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language and Communicative Practices. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2008). The place of intention in the interactional accomplishment of implicature. In Kecskes, I. and Mey, J., eds., Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 45–86.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2013). Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 41–56.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2017). Implicatures and the inferential substrate. In Cap, P. and Dynel, M., eds., Implicitness: From Lexis to Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 281–304.Google Scholar

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

Heritage, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: Practices and methods. In Silverman, D., ed., Qualitative Sociology, 3rd ed. London: Sage, pp. 208–30.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. (2013). Epistemics in conversation. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 370–94.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. and Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. and Clayman, S. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In Drew, P. and Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 55–86.Google Scholar

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Hymes, D. and Gumperz, J. J., eds., Directions in Sociolinguistics: Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. New York: Winston, Holt and Rinehart, pp. 270–320.Google Scholar

Kärkkäinen, E. and Keisanen, T. (2012). Linguistic and embodied formats for making (concrete) offers. Discourse Studies, 14(5), 587–611.Google Scholar

Kendrick, K. H. and Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 1–19.Google Scholar

Koole, T. (2015). Classroom interaction. In Tracy, K., ed., International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Kreckel, M. (1981). Where do constitutive rules for speech acts come from? Language and Communication, 1(1), 73–88.Google Scholar

Lerner, G. H. (1989). Notes on overlap management in conversation: The case of delayed completion. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53(2), 167–77.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17(5–6), 365–400.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1981). The essential inadequacies of speech act models of dialogue. In Parret, H., Sbisà, M. and Verscheuren, J., eds., Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics: Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics, Urbino, July 8–14, 1979. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 473–92.Google Scholar

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

Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action-formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar

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

Margutti, P., Tainio, L., Drew, P. and Traverso, V. (eds.). (2018). Inviting in telephone calls: A cross-linguistic study of social actions in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 125, 52–199.Google Scholar

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics.: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Mey, J. L. (2006). Pragmatic acts. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 5–11.Google Scholar

Mondada, , L. (2017). Precision timing and timed embeddedness of imperatives in embodied courses of action. In Sorjonen, M.-L., Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Raevaara, L., eds., Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 65–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Proske, N. (2017). Perspektivierung von Handlungen und Zuschreibung von Intentionalität durch pseudokoordiniertes kommen. In Deppermann, A., Proske, N. and Zeschel, A., eds., Verben im interaktiven Kontext. Bewegungsverben und mentale Verben im Gesprochenen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 177–247.Google Scholar

Rosaldo, M. Z. (1982). The things we do with words: llongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy. Language in Society, 11(2), 203–37.Google Scholar

Rossi, G. (in press). Systems of Social Action: The Case of Requesting in Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Sbisà, M. (2002). Speech acts in context. Language and Communication, 22(4), 421–37.Google Scholar

Saville-Troike, M. (1989). The Ethnography of Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

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

Schegloff, E. A. (1980). Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?” Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 104–52.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversations. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 28–52.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections of talk and social structure. In Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D. H., eds., Talk and Social Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 44–70.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 161–216.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A. and Thompson, S. A., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 52–133.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 499–545.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic, pp. 59–82.Google Scholar

Sidnell, J. (2014). The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited. In Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, P. and Sidnell, J., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 364–99.Google Scholar

Sidnell, J. (2017). Action in interaction is conduct under a description. Language in Society, 46(3), 313–37.Google Scholar

Sorjonen, M.-L., Raevaara, L. and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (eds.). (2017). Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Stevanovic, M. and Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(4), 297–321.Google Scholar

Stevanovic, M. and Peräkyläa, A. (2014). Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations. Language in Society, 43(2), 185–207.Google Scholar

Stivers, T. (2005). Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(2), 131–58.Google Scholar

Stivers, T. (2013). Sequence organization. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 191–209.Google Scholar

Stivers, T., Mondada, L. and Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L. and Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–24.Google Scholar

Stivers, T. and Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31.Google Scholar

Suchman, L. (2007). Human–Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Svennevig, J. (2018). Decomposing turns to enhance understanding by L2 speakers. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(4), 398–416.Google Scholar

Terkourafi, M. (2002). Politeness and formulaicity: Evidence from Cypriot Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 3(1), 179–201.Google Scholar

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

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A. and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Van Dijk, T. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. In Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. E. and Schiffrin, D., eds., The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd ed. Oxford: John Wiley, pp. 466–85.Google Scholar

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

Weber, M. ([1922] 1968). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. New York: Bedminster.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, Ludwig ([1950] 1953). Philosophical Investigations. Translated by Anscombe, G. E. M.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Zinken, J. (2016). Requesting Responsibility: The Morality of Grammar in Polish and English Family Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Zinken, J. and Deppermann, A. (2017). A cline of visible commitment in the situated design of imperative turns. In M.-L. Sorjonen, , L. Raevaara and Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Imperative Turns at Talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 27–63.Google Scholar

Alba-Juez, L. and Thompson, G. (2014). The many faces and phases of evaluation. In Thompson, G. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–23.Google Scholar

Bednarek, M. (2014). An astonishing season of destiny! Evaluation in blurbs used for advertising TV series. In Thompson, G. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 197–220.Google Scholar

Besnier, N. (1993). Reported speech and affect on Nukulaelae atoll. In Hill, J. H. and Irvine, J. T., eds., Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 161–81.Google Scholar

Biber, D. and Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93–124.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, M. (2009). From stance to style: Gender, interaction, and indexicality in Mexican immigrant youth slang. In Jaffe, A., ed., Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 146–70.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2016). Embodied sociolinguistics. In Coupland, N., ed., Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 173–98.Google Scholar

Burdelski, M. (2013). Socializing children to honorifics in Japanese: Identity and stance in interaction. Multilingua, 32, 247–73.Google Scholar

Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Chafe, W. and Nichols, J., eds., Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 261–72.Google Scholar

Clift, R. (2010). REVIEWS - Alexandra Jaffe (ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives (Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Pp. vii 261. Journal of Linguistics, 46(2), 518–22.Google Scholar

Conrad, S. and Biber, E. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G., eds., Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 56–73.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2009). Prosody. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J. and D’hondt, S., eds., The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 174–89.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1999). Coherent voicing: On prosody in conversational reported speech. In Bublitz, W. and Lenk, U., eds., Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to Create It and How to Describe It. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–32.Google Scholar

Coupland, J. (2013). Dance, ageing and the mirror: Negotiating watchability. Discourse and Communication, 7(1), 3–24.Google Scholar

Coupland, J. and Coupland, N. (2009). Attributing stance in discourses of body shape and weight loss. In Jaffe, A., ed., Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 227–49.Google Scholar

Coupland, N. (2001). Dialect stylization in radio talk. Language in Society, 30, 345–75.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. (2011). Politeness and impoliteness. In Aijmer, K. and Andersen, G., eds., Sociopragmatics, Vol. 5 of Handbooks of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 391–436.Google Scholar

Du Bois, J. (2007). The stance triangle. In Englebretson, R., ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 139–82.Google Scholar

Du Bois, J. and Kärkkäinen, E. (2012). Taking a stance on emotion: Affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text and Talk, 32(4), 433–51.Google Scholar

Eagly, A. H. and Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude structure and function. In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T. and Lindzey, G., eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. I, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 269–322.Google Scholar

Englebretson, R. (2007). Stancetaking in discourse: An introduction. In Englebretson, R., ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar

Field, M. (1997). The role of factive predicates in the indexicalization of stance: A discourse perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 799–814.Google Scholar

Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A. (2002). Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A., eds., The Language of Turn and Sequence. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 14–38.Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 presidential address. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1–17.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance, and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society, 18(1), 53–73.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (2006). Interactive footing. In Holt, E. and Clift, R., eds., Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 16–46.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–55.Google Scholar

Gray, B. and Biber, D. (2014). Stance markers. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 219–48.Google Scholar

Haddington, P. (2006). The organization of gaze and assessments as resources for stance taking. Text and Talk, 26(3), 281–328.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2007). The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research, Language, Behaviour, Culture, 3(2), 295–317.Google Scholar

Heath, C., vom Lehn, D., Cleverly, J. and Luff, P. (2012). Revealing surprise: The local ecology and the transposition of action. In Peräkylä, A. and Sorjonen, M.-L., eds., Emotion in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 212–34.Google Scholar

Hunston, S. (2008). The evaluation of status in multi-modal texts. Functions of Language, 15(1), 64–83.Google Scholar

Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (2000) Evaluation: An introduction. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G., eds., Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar

Jaffe, A. (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jaworski, A. and Thurlow, C. (2006). The alchemy of the upwardly mobile: symbolic capital and the stylization of elites in frequent-flyer programmes. Discourse and Society, 17(1), 99–135.Google Scholar

Kadár, D. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Keisanen, T. (2006). Patterns of Stance Taking: Negative Yes/no Interrogatives and Tag Questions in American English Conversation. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B71. Oulu: Oulu University Press.Google Scholar

Kiesling, S. (2009). Style as stance: Can stance be the primary explanation for patterns of sociolinguistic variation? In Jaffe, A., ed., Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 171–94.Google Scholar

Kockelman, P. (2012). Review of “Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives.” Edited by Alexandra M. Jaffe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 22(2), 105–8.Google Scholar

Kockelman, P. (2010). Language, Culture, and Mind: Natural Constructions and Social Kinds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 157, 233–304.Google Scholar

Kockelman, P. (2004). Stance and subjectivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14(2), 127–50.Google Scholar

Kärkkäinen, E. (2012). On digressing with a stance and not seeking a recipient response. Text and Talk, 32(4), 477–502.Google Scholar

Kärkkäinen, E. (2007). The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In Englebretson, R., ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 183–219.Google Scholar

Kärkkäinen, E. (2006). Stance-taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text and Talk, 26(6), 699–731.Google Scholar

Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of Its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on I Think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Laitinen, L. (2006). Zero person in Finnish: A grammatical resource for construing human reference. In Helasvuo, M.-L. and Campbell, L., eds., Grammar from the Human Perspective: Case, Space and Person in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 209–31.Google Scholar

Local, J. and Walker, G. (2008). Stance and affect in conversation: On the interplay of sequential and phonetic resources. Text and Talk, 28(6), 723–47.Google Scholar

Martin, J. (2000). Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G., eds., Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 142–75.Google Scholar

Martin, J. and White, P. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

McLaughlin, J. (2009). Discourse or cognition: An introduction to discursive psychology. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 28(2), 50–61.Google Scholar

Niemelä, M. (2011). Resonance in Storytelling: Verbal, Prosodic and Embodied Practices of Stance Taking. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B95. Oulu: Oulu University Press.Google Scholar

Niemelä, M. (2005). Voiced direct reported speech in conversational storytelling: Sequential patterns of stance taking. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 18, 197–221.Google Scholar

Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 335–58.Google Scholar

Ochs, E. and Capps, L. (2001). Living Narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Palmer, F. (1979). Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Potter, J. (1998). Discursive social psychology: From attitudes to evaluative practices. European Review of Social Psychology, 9, 233–66.Google Scholar

Potter, J. and Edwards, D. (2003). Sociolinguistics, cognitivism and discursive psychology. International Journal of English Studies, 3(1), 93–109.Google Scholar

Rauniomaa, M. (2008). Recovery through Repetition: Returning to Prior Talk and Taking a Stance in American-English and Finnish Conversations. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B85. Oulu: Oulu University Press.Google Scholar

Romano, M. (2014). Evaluation in emotion narratives. In Thompson, G. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 367–86.Google Scholar

Scheibman, J. (2007). Subjective and intersubjective uses of generalizations in English conversation. In Englebretson, R., ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 111–39.Google Scholar

Scheibman, J. (2001). Local patterns of subjectivity in person and verb type in American English conversation. In Bybee, J. and Hopper, P., eds., Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 61–89.Google Scholar

Schiffrin, D. (1996). Narrative a self-portrait: Sociolinguistic construction of identity. Language in Society, 25, 167–203.Google Scholar

Shoaps, R. (2007). Moral irony: Modal particles, moral persons and indirect stance-taking in Sakapultek discourse. Pragmatics, 17(2), 297–335.Google Scholar

Sidnell, J. (2006). Coordinating gesture, gaze and talk in re-enactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(4), 377–409.Google Scholar

Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57.Google Scholar

Terkourafi, M. (2019). Coming to grips with variation in sociocultural interpretations: Methodological considerations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 50(10), 1198–215.Google Scholar

Walton, S. and Jaffe, A. (2011). Stuff white people like: Stance, class, race, and internet commentary. In Thurlow, C. and Mroczek, K., eds., Digital Discourse: Language in the New Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 199–219.Google Scholar

Wetherell, M. and Potter, J. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Wu, R. (2004). Stance in Talk: A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin Final Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Aijmer, K. (2018). Positioning of self in interaction: Adolescents’ use of attention-getters. In K. Beeching, C. Ghezzi, and P. Molinelli, , eds., Positioning the Self and Others: Linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 177–95.Google Scholar

Auer, P. (1992). Introduction: John Gumperz’ approach to contextualization. In Auer, P. and Di Luzio, A., eds., The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar

Auer, P. and Di Luzio, A. (eds.). (1992). The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Babcock, B. A. (ed.). (1980). Signs about Signs: The Semiotics of Self-Reference. Special Issue. Semiotica, 30(1/2).Google Scholar

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Edited by Holquist, M. and Emerson, C.. Translated by Holquist, M.. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar

Bauman, R. and Sherzer, J. (eds.). (1989). Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Beeching, K. (2018). Metacommenting in English and French: A variational pragmatics approach. In K. Beeching, C. Ghezzi, and P. Molinelli, , eds., Positioning the Self and Others: Linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 127–53.Google Scholar

Beeching, K., Ghezzi, C. and Molinelli, P. (eds.). (2018). Positioning the Self and Others: Linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Benveniste, E. (1956). La nature des pronoms. In Halle, M. et al., eds., For Roman Jakobson. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 34–7.Google Scholar

Benveniste, E. (1966). Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar

Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic Performance and Interlinguistic Competence. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Briggs, C. (1986). Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bublitz, W. and Hübler, A. (eds.). (2007). Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Busse, U. and Hübler, A. (eds.). (2012). Investigations into the Meta-Communicative Lexicon of English: A Contribution to Historical Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1919). The Logical Syntax of Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Caton, S. C. (1993). The importance of reflexive language in George H. Mead’s theory of self and communication. In Lucy, J. A., ed., Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 315–37.Google Scholar

Coulmas, F. (ed.). (1986a). Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Coulmas, F. (1986b). Reported speech: Some general issues. In Coulmas, F., ed., Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar

Daniëls, H. (2018). Diglossia: A language ideological approach. Pragmatics, 28(2), 185–216.Google Scholar

Deschrijver, C. (2018). Economic and financial terms in online interaction: Metalanguage in the Guardian comment boards during the 2010–2011 Euro Crisis bailouts. PhD dissertation, King’s College London.Google Scholar

Ducrot, O. (1984). Le dire et le dit. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar

Duranti, A. (2015). The Anthropology of Intentions: Language in a World of Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester, UK: St Jerome.Google Scholar

Errington, J. J. (1985). On the nature of the sociolinguistic sign. In Mertz, E. and Parmentier, R., eds., Semiotic Mediation. New York: Academic Press, pp. 287–310.Google Scholar

Errington, J. J. (1992). On the ideology of Indonesian language development: The state of a language of state. Pragmatics, 2(3), 417–26.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. J. (1997). Lectures on Deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. J. (1984). Remarks on contrastive pragmatics. In Fisiak, J., ed., Contrastive Linguistics: Prospects and Problems. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 119–41.Google Scholar

Fukushima, S. (2013). Evaluation of (im)politeness: A comparative study among Japanese students, Japanese parents, and American students on evaluation of attentiveness. Pragmatics, 23(2), 275–99.Google Scholar

Geyer, N. (2018). Negotiating entitlement in Japanese: The case of requesting forms. In Hudson, M. E., Matsumoto, Y. and Mori, J., eds., Pragmatics of Japanese: Perspectives on Grammar, Interaction and Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 149–72.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1979). Footing. Semiotica, 25, 1–29.Google Scholar

Gombert, J. É. (1990). Le développement métalinguistique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. English translation, 1992, Metalinguistic Development. Hertfordshire, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Contextualization revisited. In Auer, P. and Di Luzio, A., eds., The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 39–53.Google Scholar

Hanks, W. F. (1993). Metalanguage and pragmatics of deixis. In Lucy, J.A., ed., Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 127–57.Google Scholar

Harras, G., Winkler, A., Erb, S. and Proost, K. (2004). Handbuch deutscher Kommunikationsverben. 2 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2018). Corpus-based metapragmatics. In Jucker, A., Schneider, K. P. and Bublitz, W., eds., Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 615–39.Google Scholar

Hill, J. H. (2008). The Language of Everyday White Racism. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hoenigswald, H. (1966). A proposal for the study of folk-linguistics. In Bright, W., ed., Sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 16–26.Google Scholar

Holt, E. (2009). Reported speech. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar

Hübler, A. (2007). On the metapragmatics of gestures. In Bublitz, W. and Hübler, A., eds., Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 107–28.Google Scholar

Hudson, M. E., Matsumoto, Y. and Mori, J. (eds.). (2018). Pragmatics of Japanese: Perspectives on Grammar, Interaction and Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Irvine, J. T. (1995). Honorifics. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar

Jacobs, G. (1999). Preformulating the News: An Analysis of the Metapragmatics of Press Releases. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Jakobson, R. ([1957] 1971). Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In Selected Writings II. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 130–47.Google Scholar

Jakobson, R. ([1956] 1985). Metalanguage as a linguistic problem. In Selected Writings VII. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 113–21.Google Scholar

Jaworski, A., Coupland, N. and Galasiński, D. (eds.). (2004). Metalanguage: Social and Ideological Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. (1922). Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. New York: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

Katriel, T. (1986). Talking Straight: ‘Dugri’ Speech in Israeli Sabra Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kertész, A. (1997). The reflexivity of cognitive science and the philosophy of linguistics. In A. Kertész, , ed., Metalinguistik im Wandel: Die ‘kognitive Wende’in Wissenschaftstheorie und Linguistik. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang, pp. 197–233.Google Scholar

Kroskrity, P. V. (2010). Language ideologies. In Östman, J-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100.Google Scholar

Lucy, J. (1993a). Reflexive language and the human disciplines. In Lucy, J. A., ed., Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–32.Google Scholar

Lucy, J. (1993b). Metapragmatic presentationals: Reporting speech with quotatives in Yucatec Maya. In Lucy, J. A., ed., Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–125.Google Scholar

Lucy, J. A. (ed.). (1993). Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Maschler, Y. (2009). Metalanguage in Interaction: Hebrew Discourse Markers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

McKenzie, R. M. and Osthus, D. (2011). That which we call a rose by any other name would sound as sweet: Folk perceptions, status and language variation. AILA Review, 24, 100–115.Google Scholar

Mertz, E. (1993). Learning what to ask: Metapragmatic factors and methodological reification. In Lucy, J. A., ed., Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–74.Google Scholar

Mertz, E. and Yovel, J. (2000). Metalinguistic awareness. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar

Muntigl, P. (2007). A metapragmatic examination of therapist reformulations. In Bublitz, W. and Hübler, A., eds., Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 235–62.Google Scholar

Nakassis, C. V. (2013). Citation and citationality. Signs and Society, 1(1), 51–78.Google Scholar

Niedzelski, N. and Preston, D. R. (2007). Folk pragmatics. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar

Nyan, T. (1998). Metalinguistic Operators with Reference to French. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Okamoto, S. (2018). Metapragmatic discourse in self-help books on Japanese women’s speech: An indexical approach to social meanings In Hudson, M. E., Matsumoto, Y. and Mori, J., eds., Pragmatics of Japanese: Perspectives on Grammar, Interaction and Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 246–66.Google Scholar

Penz, H. (2007). Building common ground through metapragmatic comments in international project work. In Bublitz, W. and Hübler, A., eds., Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 263–92.Google Scholar

Petykó, M. (2018). The motives attributed to trolls in metapragmatic comments on three Hungarian left-wing political blogs. Pragmatics, 28(3), 391–416.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (2000). Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta: An Essay on Metarepresentation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Ortony, A., ed., Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 284–324.Google Scholar

Roulet, E. (1996). Polyphony. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar

Ruesch, J. and Bateson, G. (1951). Communication: The Social Matrix of Psychiatry. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar

Salverda, R. (2017). “Montrer au linguiste ce qu’il fait”: Revisiting Saussure from an experimental perspective on language play. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure: Revue de Linguistique Générale, 70, 115–27.Google Scholar

Schieffelin, B. B., Kroskrity, P. V. and Woolard, K. A. (eds.). (1992). Language Ideologies. Special Issue. Pragmatics, 3(2).Google Scholar

Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Basso, K. and Selby, H., eds., Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 11–55.Google Scholar

Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Clyne, P. R., Hanks, W. F. and Hofbauer, C. L., eds., The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 193–247.Google Scholar

Silverstein, M. (1981). The limits of awareness. Sociolinguistic Working Paper 84.Google Scholar

Silverstein, M. (1993). Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In Lucy, J. A., ed., Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33–58.Google Scholar

Sinkeviciute, V. (2019). Juggling identities in interviews: The metapragmatics of ‘doing humour’. Journal of Pragmatics. 152: 216–227.Google Scholar

Sivenkova, M. (2013). On the metapragmatics of British, German and Russian political questions and answers. In Fetzer, A., ed., The Pragmatics of Political Discourse: Explorations across Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 21–46.Google Scholar

Suzuki, S. (2018). Linguistic nationalism and fictional deception: Metapragmatic stereotype on non-Japanese in Japan. In Hudson, M. E., Matsumoto, Y. and Mori, J., eds., Pragmatics of Japanese: Perspectives on Grammar, Interaction and Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 267–87.Google Scholar

Tarski, A. (1956). The semantic conception of truth. Philosophical and Phenomenological Research, 4, 341–75.Google Scholar

Tunmer, W. E., Pratt, C. and Herriman, M. L. (eds.). (1984). Metalinguistic Awareness in Children: Theory, Research, and Implications. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Urban, G. (1984). Speech about speech in speech about action. The Journal of American Folklore, 97(385), 310–28.Google Scholar

Verschueren, J. (1985a). What People Say They Do with Words: Prolegomena to an Empirical-Conceptual Approach to Linguistic Action. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Verschueren, J. (1985b). International News Reporting: Metapragmatic Metaphors and the U2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Verschueren, J. (1989). Language on language: Towards metapragmatic universals. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics, 3(2), 1–144.Google Scholar

Verschueren, J. (1995). The conceptual basis of performativity. In Shibatani, M. and Thompson, S., eds., Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 297–319.Google Scholar

Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold/Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Verschueren, J. (2000). Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language use. Pragmatics, 10(4), 439–56.Google Scholar

Verschueren, J. and Brisard, F. (2002). Adaptability. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar

Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J. B. and Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar

Wilton, A. and Stegu, M. (eds.). (2011). Applied Folk Linguistics. Special Issue. AILA Review, 24.Google Scholar

Winch, P. (1958). The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Woolard, K. and Schieffelin, B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23, 55–82.Google Scholar

Woolgar, S. (ed.). (1988). Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Auer, P. (2009). Context and contextualization. In Verschueren, J. and Östman, J-O., eds., Key Notions for Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 86–101.Google Scholar

Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language and Society, 13(2), 145–204.Google Scholar

Boyd, M. S. (2014). (New) participatory framework on YouTube? Commenter interaction in US political speeches. Journal of Pragmatics, 72, 46–58.Google Scholar

Chovanec, J. and Dynel, M. (2015). Researching interactional forms and participant structures in public and social media. In Dynel, M. and Chovanec, J., eds., Participation in Public and Social Media Interactions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. and Carlson, T. (1982). Hearers and speech acts. Language, 58, 332–72.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. and Schaefer, E. F. (1992). Dealing with overhearers. In Clark, H. H., ed., Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 248–73.Google Scholar

Clayman, S. (2007). Speaking on behalf of the public in broadcast news interviews. In Holt, E. and Clift, R., eds., Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 221–43.Google Scholar

Davies, B. (2018). Evaluating evaluations: What different types of metapragmatic behaviour can tell us about participants’ understandings of the moral order. Journal of Politeness Research, 14(1), 121–51.Google Scholar

Dynel, M. (2010). Not hearing things – Hearer/listener categories in polylogues, http://mediazioni.sitlec.unibo.it.Google Scholar

Dynel, M. (2011). ‘You talking to me?’ The viewer as a ratified listener to film discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1628–44.Google Scholar

Dynel, M. (2014). Participation framework underlying YouTube interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 37–52.Google Scholar

Dynel, M. and Chovanec, J. (eds.). (2015). Participation in Public and Social Media Interactions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., Fernández-Amaya, L. and de la O Hernández-López, M. (eds.). (2019). Technology Mediated Service Encounters. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1963). Behaviour in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1964). The neglected situation. American Anthropologist, 66(6, part II), 133–6.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harmondsworth, UK: Peregrine Books.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. ([1979] 1981a). Footing. In Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 124–59. (Originally published in Semiotica, 25, 1–29.)Google Scholar