Skip to main content Accessibility help

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

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-2jptb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-26T04:32:40.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Research Methods in Intercultural Pragmatics

from Part II - Key Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2022

By
Monika Kirner-Ludwig
Edited by
Istvan Kecskes
Istvan Kecskes
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Albany
Get access

Summary

This chapter surveys and discusses research methods and research designs commonly and saliently adhered to within the field of intercultural pragmatics. A particular focus will be on data collection methods and qualitative analytical approaches to empirical data, with the guiding question of this chapter being: What are the most saliently trending research methods employed in current and recent research in intercultural pragmatics?As such, this chapter represents a hub among the contributions assembled in thishandbook in that it intertwines with or at least closes contingent spaces between topics and issues discussed across the five strands covered. Thus, this chapter not only falls back on what has been established concerning the underlying theoretical foundations of the field and its methodologies as a whole, but also sets reference points to key issues in “doing” research in intercultural pragmatics. Sections included offer an extensive review of the massive body of literature on conventional and relevant terminology as well as salient aspects of data collection and data analysis in (intercultural) pragmatics overall. The core sections present research designs ranging from introspective, observational, and extracted data to (non- )experimental data elicitation techniques and tasks.

Keywords

pragmatics methodsintercultural studieselicited dataexperimental designsusage-based approachelicitation methodsintrospection
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics , pp. 361 - 394
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

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

References

Abdoola, F., Flack, P. S., and Karrim, S. B. (2017). Facilitating pragmatic skills through role-play in learners with language learning disability. South African Journal of Communication Disorders, 64(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajcd.v64i1.187.Google Scholar
Al-Gahtani, S. and Roever, C. (2014). The development of requests by L2 learners of Arabic: A longitudinal and cross-sectional study. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Al-Surmi, M. (2012). Authenticity and TV shows: A multidimensional analysis perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 671–694. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.33.Google Scholar
Alcón Soler, E. (2012). Teachability and bilingualism effects on third language learners’ pragmatic knowledge. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9(4): 511–541. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2012-0028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M. (2012). The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apresjan, V. (2019). Pragmatics in the interpretation of scope ambiguities. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(4), 421–461. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, D. and Grundy, P. (eds.) (2011). The Pragmatics Reader. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999a). The interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49, 677–713.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999b). Researching method. In Bouton, L. F., ed., Pragmatics and Language Learning. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Division of English as an International Language, pp. 237–267.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2010). Exploring the pragmatics of interlanguage pragmatics: Definition by design. In Trosborg, A., ed., Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 219–259.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Salsbury, T. (2004). The organization of turns in the disagreements of L2 learners: A longitudinal perspective. In Boxer, D. and Cohen, A. D., eds., Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 199–227.Google Scholar
Barron, A., Gu, Y., and Steen, G. (eds.) (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315668925.Google Scholar
Barron, A. and Schneider, K.P. (2009). Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language use in interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(4), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2009.023.Google Scholar
Bataller, R. and Shively, R. (2011). Role-plays and naturalistic data in pragmatics research: Service encounters during study abroad. Journal of Linguistics and Language Learning, 2(1), 15–50.Google Scholar
Bebee, L. and Cummings, L. (1995). Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In Gass, S. M. and Neu, J., eds., Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 65–86.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. (2010). The Language of Fictional Television: Drama and Identity. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. (2011). Approaching the data of pragmatics. In Norrick, N. R. and Bublitz, W., eds., Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 537–559. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214260.537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, M. (2018). Language and Television Series: A Linguistic Approach to TV Dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108559553.Google Scholar
Billmyer, K. and Varghese, M. (2000). Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 517–552. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.4.517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G. (eds.) (1989a). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (Advances in Discourse Processes, 31). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G. (1989b). Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G., eds., Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (Advances in Discourse Processes, 31). Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
Bou-Franch, P. and Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2008). Natural versus elicited data in cross-cultural speech act realisation: The case of requests in Peninsular Spanish and British English. Spanish in Context, 5(2), 246–277. https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.5.2.06lor.Google Scholar
Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316410899.Google Scholar
Briggs, C. L. (2008). Sociolinguistic Interviews. In Ammon, Ulrich, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier, and Trudgill, Peter, eds., Sociolinguistics, Vol. II. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1052–1062.Google Scholar
Brinker, K., Antos, G., Heinemann, W., and Sager, S. F. (eds.) (2001). Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft: 16.2. Text- und Gesprächslinguistik: Linguistics of Text and Conversation: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110194227.Google Scholar
Capone, A., Lo Piparo, F., and Carapezza, M. (eds.) (2013). Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy and Psychology, Vol. II: Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics. Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01014-4.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Bangerter, A. (2004). Changing ideas about reference. In Noveck, I. and Sperber, D., eds., Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 25–49.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Verbal reports as a source of insights into second language learner strategies. Applied Language Learning, 7, 5–24.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. (2004). Assessing speech acts in a second language. Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning, 8, 302–327.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Barth-Weingarten, D. (2011). A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2: English translation and adaptation of Selting, Margret et al.: Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2. Gesprächsforschung, 12, 1–51.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Gillings, M. (2019). Pragmatics: Data trends. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 4–14. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.004.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D. Z. (eds.) (2017). The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., and Taguchi, N. (2018). Second Language Pragmatics: From Theory to Research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Marti, L., Mei, M., Nevala, M., and Schauer, G. (2010). Cross-cultural variation in the perception of impoliteness: A study of impoliteness events reported by Students in England, China, Finland, Germany, and Turkey. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 597–624. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2010.027.Google Scholar
Cummins, C., and Katsos, N. (2019). The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, W. A. (2018). Three accounts of propositional relation reports. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(2): 237–269. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0006.Google Scholar
Decock, S. and Spiessens, A. (2017). Customer complaints and disagreements in a multilingual business environment: A discursive-pragmatic analysis. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1): 77–115. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0004.Google Scholar
Demeter, G. (2007). Role-plays as a data collection method for research on apology speech acts. Simulation and Gaming, 38(1), 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878106297880.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.) (1992). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., Cumming, S., Schuetze-Coburn, S., and Paolino, D. (eds.) (1992). Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, Vol. IV: Discourse Transcription. Santa Barbara, CA: Department of Linguistics, University of California.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. [1997] (2008). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810190.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2015). Impoliteness in the service of verisimilitude in film interaction. In Dynel, M. and Chovanec, J., eds., Participation in Public and Social Media Interactions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 157–182. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.256.07dyn.Google Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2013). Strategies, modification and perspective in native speakers’ requests: A comparison of WDCT and naturally occurring requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 53, 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.014.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. and Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fein, O., Yeari, M., and Giora, R. (2015). On the priority of salience-based interpretations: The case of sarcastic irony. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0001.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2010). Data collection methods in speech act performance. In Martínez-Flor, A. and Usó-Juan, E., eds., Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.26.03fel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2009). Pragmatic variation across Spanish(es): Requesting in Mexican, Costa Rican, and Dominican Spanish. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(4), 473–515. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2009.025.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2007). Natural speech vs. elicited data: A comparison of natural and role play requests in Mexican Spanish. Spanish in Context, 4(2), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.4.2.03fel.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and Hasler-Barker, M. (2017). Elicited data. In Barron, A., Gu, Y., and Steen, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. London: Routledge, pp. 27–40.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. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2020-0001.Google Scholar
Fielding, N., Lee, R. M., and Blank, G. (eds.) (2017). The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Flick, U. (ed.) (2014). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Fox-Turnbull, W. (2011). Autophotography. In Benson, C. and Lunt, J., eds., International Handbook of Primary Technology Education: Reviewing the Past Twenty Years. Rotterdam: Sense, pp. 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-546-8_16.Google Scholar
Gabbatore, I., Bosco, F. M., Mäkinen, L., Ebeling, H., Hurtig, T., and Loukusa, S. (2019). Investigating pragmatic abilities in young Finnish adults using the assessment battery for communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(1): 27–56. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0002.Google Scholar
Garces-Conejos Blitvitch, P. (2006). Interlanguage pragmatics: A response to Andrew Cohen’s “Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts,” Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(2), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2006.013.Google Scholar
Garrett, M. and Harnish, R. M. (2007). Experimental pragmatics: Testing for implicitures. Pragmatics and Cognition, 15(1), 65–90. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.15.1.07gar.Google Scholar
Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 40(2), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444807004144.Google Scholar
Giorgi, A. and Dal Farra, C. (2019). On the syntax/pragmatics interface: Expressing surprise and disapproval. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(3), 335–361. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0017.Google Scholar
Golato, A. (2017). Naturally occurring data. In Barron, A., Gu, Y., and Steen, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. London: Routledge, pp. 21–26. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315668925-3.Google Scholar
Golato, A., and Golato, P. (2013). Pragmatics research methods. In Chapelle, C. H., ed., The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
González-Cruz, M. (2014). Request patterns by EFL Canarian Spanish students: Contrasting data by languages and research methods. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(4), 547–573. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2014-0024.Google Scholar
Goodman, S., and Burke, S. (2010). “Oh you don’t want asylum seekers, oh you’re just racist”: A discursive analysis of discussions about whether it’s racist to oppose asylum seeking. Discourse and Society, 21(3), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926509360743.Google Scholar
Grisot, C. (2017). A quantitative approach to conceptual, procedural and pragmatic meaning: Evidence from inter-annotator agreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 117, 245–263. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.020.Google Scholar
Gülich, E. (2001). On the connection between !Ay and specialist “methods”. In Brinker, K., Antos, G., Heinemann, W., and Sager, S. F., eds., Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft: 16.2 Text- und Gesprächslinguistik /An International Handbook of Contemporary Research: Linguistics of Text and Conversation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 1086–1093.Google Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, S. and Grucza, S. (2016). Eyetracking and Applied Linguistics. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. and Narrog, H. (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hendriks, B. (2008). Dutch English requests: A study of request performance by Dutch learners of English. In Pütz, Martin and Aertselaer, JoAnne Neff-van, eds., Developing Contrastive Pragmatics: Interlanguage and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 335–354.Google Scholar
Herring, S., Stein, D., and Virtanen, T. (eds.) (2013). Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214468.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R., and Ward, G. L. (eds.) (2004). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Chicago: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Houck, N. and Gass, S. (1996). Non-native refusals: A methodological perspective. In Gass, S. and Neu, J., eds., Speech Acts across Cultures. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 45–64.Google Scholar
House, J. (2018). Authentic vs elicited data and qualitative vs quantitative research methods in pragmatics: Overcoming two non-fruitful dichotomies. System, 75, 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.014.Google Scholar
Hoye, L. F. (2008). Evidentiality in discourse: A pragmatic and empirical account. In Romero-Trillo, J., ed., Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199024.151.Google Scholar
Hua, Z. (ed.) (2016). Research Methods in Intercultural Communication: A Practical Guide. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. (ed.) (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E. and Tzanne, A. (2012). Levels of pragmatic competence in an EFL academic context: A tool for assessment. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9(1), 47–70. doi: 10.1515/ip-2012-0003.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. (ed.) (2020). Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J., Baker, W., and Dewey, M. (eds.) (2018). The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (2018). Data in pragmatic research. In A. Jucker, H., K. Schneider, P., Bublitz, W., Jucker, A. H., Schneider, K. P., and Bublitz, W., eds., Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-001.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (2009). Speech act research between armchair, field and laboratory. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1611–1635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H., Schneider, K. P., and Bublitz, W. (eds.) (2018). Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Staley, L. (2017). (Im)politeness and developments in methodology. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 403–429. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanik, M. (2016). Reverse discourse completion task as an assessment tool for intercultural competence. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 621–644. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2013.3.4.8.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (2008). Data collection in pragmatics research. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. London/New York: Continuum, pp. 316–341.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 215–247. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009955.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In Hinkel, E., ed., Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 317–334.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Mahwah, NJ: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Katsos, N., Roqueta, C. A., Estevan, R. A. C., and Cummins, C. (2011). Are children with specific language impairment competent with the pragmatics and logic of quantification? Cognition, 119(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.004.Google Scholar
Keating, J. (2021). Populist discourse and active metaphors in the 2016 US presidential elections. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4),499–531.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2020). Interculturality and intercultural pragmatics. In Jackson, J., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication. London: Routledge, pp. 138–155.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2018). Intercultural pragmatics. In Liedtke, F. and Tuchen, A., eds., Handbuch Pragmatik. Stuttgart: Metzler, pp. 140–149.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2017). Cross-cultural and intercultural pragmatics. In Huang, Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 400–415. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697960.013.29.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2015). Intracultural communication and intercultural communication: Are they different? International Review of Pragmatics, 7(2), 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00702002.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2000). Conceptual fluency and the use of situation-bound utterances. Links and Letters, 7, 145–161.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2004). Editorial: Lexical merging, conceptual blending, and cultural crossing. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2004.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Assimakopoulos, S. (2017). Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.274.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Romero-Trillo, J. (2013). Research Trends in Intercultural Pragmatics. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513735.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/pandc.17.2.06kec.Google Scholar
Kim, S. H. and Lee, H. (2017). Politeness in power-asymmetrical e-mail requests of Korean and American corporate employees. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(2): 207–238. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0010.Google Scholar
König, K. and and Zhu, Q. (2017). Communicative constructions of space in epistemic asymmetry: The case of German-Chinese university placement interviews. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(2): 239–276. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0011.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. J. (2010). Language and Culture: Oxford Introductions to Language Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krueger, R. A. and Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 4th ed. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Krzyżanowska, K. and Douven, I. (2018). Missing-link conditionals: Pragmatically infelicitous or semantically defective? Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(2): 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0004.Google Scholar
Ladegaard, H. J. (2011). “Doing power” at work: Responding to male and female management styles in a global business corporation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 4-19.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leung, C., Harris, R., and Rampton, B. (2004). Living with inelegance in qualitative research on task-based learning. In Norton, B. and Toohey, K., eds., Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 242–268. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524834.013.Google Scholar
Levisen, C. (2018). Dark, but Danish: Ethnopragmatic perspectives on black humor. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(4), 515–531. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liedtke, F. and Tuchen, A. (eds.) (2018). Handbuch Pragmatik. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Little, D., Devitt, S. and Singleton, D. [1989] (1994). Learning Foreign Languages from Authentic Texts: Theory and Practice. Dublin: Authentik.Google Scholar
Maier, R. M., Hofmockel, C., and Fetzer, A. (2016). The negotiation of discourse relations in context: Co-constructing degrees of overtness. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(1), 71–105. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0003.Google Scholar
Maíz-Arévalo, C. (2014). Expressing disagreement in English as a Lingua Franca:Whose pragmatic rules? Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(2), 199–224. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2014-0009.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. and Placencia, M. E. (2005). Spanish Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A. (2006). Task effects on EFL learner’s production of suggestions: A focus on elicited phone messages and emails. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 33, 47–64.Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A. and Usó-Juan, E. (2011). Research methodologies in pragmatics: Eliciting refusals to requests. Estudios De Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, 11, 47–87.Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A. and Usó-Juan, E. (eds.) (2010). Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A. and Usó-Juan, E. (2006). A comprehensive pedagogical framework to develop pragmatics in the foreign language classroom: The 6Rs approach. Applied Language Learning, 16(2), 39–64.Google Scholar
McKay, S. and Hornberger, N. H. (eds.) (2005). Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meibauer, J. (2012). Pragmatic evidence, context, and story design: An essay on recent developments in experimental pragmatics. Language Sciences, 34(6), 768–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.014.Google Scholar
Meibauer, J. and Steinbach, M. (2011). Experimental Pragmatics/Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mey, J. L. (2004). Between culture and pragmatics: Scylla and Charybdis? The precarious condition of intercultural pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/612-295X/04/0001–0027.Google Scholar
Minh Nguyen, T. T. (2019). Data collection methods in L2 pragmatics research: An overview. In Taguchi, N., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 195–211.Google Scholar
Moreland, J. and Cowie, B. (2016). Exploring the methods of auto-photography and photo-interviews: Children taking pictures of science and technology. Waikato Journal of Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v11i1.320.Google Scholar
Mori, J. and thi Nguyen, H. (2019). Conversation analysis in L2 pragmatics research. In Taguchi, N., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 212–225.Google Scholar
Murray, T. E. (2001). Ethical and legal considerations in the surreptitious recording of conversational data. In Brinker, K., Antos, G., Heinemann, W., and Sager, S. F., eds., Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft: 16.2 Text- und Gesprächslinguistik /An International Handbook of Contemporary Research: Linguistics of Text and Conversation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,pp. 1033–1036.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. and Bublitz, W. (eds.) (2011). Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214260.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. A. (2018). Experimental Pragmatics: The Making of a Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781316027073.Google Scholar
Noveck, I., and Sperber, D. (eds.) (2004). Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524125.Google Scholar
Ogiermann, E. (2008). On the culture-specificity of linguistic gender differences: The case of English and Russian apologies. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(3), 259–286. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2008.013.Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, A., Clancy, B., and Adolphs, S. (2011). Introducing Pragmatics in Use. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Paltridge, B. and Phakiti, A. (eds.) (2015). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. A Practical Resource, 2nd ed. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Potter, J. (2002). Two kinds of natural. Discourse Studies, 4(4), 539–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040040901Google Scholar
Pulaczewska, H. (2013). You get what you put in: Elicited production versus spontaneous verbal interaction in cross-linguistic studies of language use. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(4), 647–678. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2013-0030.Google Scholar
Roever, C. (2015). Researching pragmatics. In Paltridge, B. and Phakiti, A., eds., Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. New York: Bloomsbury, pp. 387–402.Google Scholar
Rose, K. R. (1994). On the validity of discourse completion tests in non-western contexts. Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/15.1.1.Google Scholar
Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 27–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100001029.Google Scholar
Rose, K. R. (2001). Compliments and compliment responses in film: Implications for pragmatics research and language teaching. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 39(4), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2001.007.Google Scholar
Ross, S. J. and Hong, Y. (2019). Mixed methods in L2 pragmatics research. In Taguchi, N. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 212–225.Google Scholar
Ross, S. and Kasper, G. (2013). Assessing Second Language Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Salmons, J. (ed.) (2012). Cases in Online Interview Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335155.Google Scholar
Savić, M. (2015). “Can I very please borrow it?”: Request development in young Norwegian EFL learners. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(4), 443–480. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0023.Google Scholar
Saville-Troike, M. (2002). The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction, 3rd ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schauer, G. A. and Adolphs, S. (2006). Expressions of ratitude in Corpusand DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System, 34(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.09.003.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse and Society, 8(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008002002.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). In another context. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–228.Google Scholar
Schlesewsky, M. (2009). Linguistische Daten aus experimentellen Umgebungen: Eine multiexperimentelle und multimodale Perspektive. Zeitschrift Für Sprachwissenschaft, 28(1), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1515/ZFSW.2009.020.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.‑J. (2012). Cognitive Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2018). Methods and ethics of data collection. In A. Jucker, H., Schneider, K. P., Bublitz, W., Jucker, A. H., Schneider, K. P., and Bublitz, W., eds., Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 37–94.Google Scholar
Schneider, H. J. (1995). Intuition and introspection. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J.-O., and Blommaert, J. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 606–608.Google Scholar
Senft, G., Östman, J.‑O., and Verschueren, J. (eds.) (2009). Culture and Language Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sharifian, F. and Jamarani, M. (2011). Cultural schemas in intercultural communication: A study of the Persian cultural schema of sharmandegi “being ashamed.” Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(2), 227–251. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2011.011Google Scholar
Shuval, N. and Hemforth, B. (2008). Accessibility of negated constituents in reading and listening. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(4), 445–469. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2008.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sifianou, M. and Tzanne, A. (2010). Conceptualizations of politeness and impoliteness in Greek. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 661–687.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). Rapport management theory and culture. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(3), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.3.335.Google Scholar
Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., and Rook, D. W. (2007). Focus Groups: Theory and Practice, 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412991841.Google Scholar
Sydorenko, T. (2015). The use of computer-delivered structured tasks in pragmatic instruction: An exploratory study. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(3), 333–362. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0017.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (ed.) (2019). The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. and Kim, Y. (2018). Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Takimoto, M. (2009). Input-Based Task and Interlanguage Pragmatics: The Effects of Input-Based Task on the Development of Learners’ Pragmatic Proficiency. Saarbrücken: VDM.Google Scholar
Tayebi, T. (2018). Implying an impolite belief: A case of TIKKEH in Persian. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(1): 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0031.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. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2020-0010.Google Scholar
Tracy, S. K. (2013). Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110885286.Google Scholar
Trosborg, A. (ed.) (2010). Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214444.Google Scholar
Tuchen, A. (2018). Methodologie der Pragmatik. In Liedtke, F. and Tuchen, A., eds., Handbuch Pragmatik. Stuttgart: Metzler, pp. 13–28.Google Scholar
Turnbull, W. (2001). An appraisal of pragmatic elicitation techniques for the social psychological study of talk. Pragmatics, 11(1), 31–61. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.11.1.03tur.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. (2013). From verbal protocols to cooperative dialogue in the assessment of second language pragmatic competence. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(1): 71–100. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2013-0003.Google Scholar
van Lier, L. (2005). Case study. In Hinkel, E., ed., Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 195–208.Google Scholar
Warga, M. and Schölmberger, U. (2007). The acquisition of French apologetic behavior in a study abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 221–251. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2007.012.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. (1986). Research methodology and the question of validity. TESOL Quarterly, 20(4), 689–699. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586519Google Scholar
Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00259.x.Google Scholar
Youn, S. J. (2020). Interactional features of L2 pragmatic interaction in role‐play speaking assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 54(1), 201–233.https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, Y. (2001). An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2), 271–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166.Google Scholar
Žegarac, V. and Spencer-Oatey, H. (2013). Achieving mutual understanding in intercultural project partnerships: Cooperation, self-orientation, and fragility. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(3), 433–458. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2013-0019.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

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

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

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

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

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

Available formats
×