Skip to main content Accessibility help

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

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T08:59:07.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2021

Nicolas Ruytenbeek
Nicolas Ruytenbeek
Affiliation:
Ghent University
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Indirect Speech Acts , pp. 206 - 220
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

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

References

Abbeduto, Leonard, Furman, Laurie and Davies, Betty. 1989. Identifying speech acts from contextual and linguistic information. Language and Speech 32 (3): 189–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, James F., Byron, Dona, Dzikovska, Myroslava, Ferguson, George, Galescu, Lucian and Stent, Amanda. 2001. Toward conversational human-computer interaction. AI Magazine 22 (4): 27–37.Google Scholar
Allen, James F. and Perrault, Raymond. 1980. Analyzing intention in utterances. Artificial Intelligence 15 (3): 143–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aloni, Maria, Butler, Alastair and Dekker, Paul, eds. 2007. Questions in Dynamic Semantics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas and Lascarides, Alex. 2001. Indirect speech acts. Synthese 128: 183–228.Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1998. Standardization revisited. In Kasher, Asa, ed., Pragmatics: Critical Assessment. London: Routledge, 712–22.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 2006. The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. In Birner, Betty J. and Ward, Gregory, eds., Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21–30.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent and Harnish, Robert M.. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Wendy and Bricker, Rachel H.. 2010. The effects of direct and indirect speech acts on native English and ESL speakers’ perception of teacher written feedback. System 38: 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, Stephen. 2004. Renewing Meaning: A Speech-Act Theoretic Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Base textuelle FRANTEXT. 2016. Online corpus. ATILF – CNRS and Université de Lorraine. www.frantext.fr, last accessed 14/11/2020.Google Scholar
Bašnáková, Jana, Weber, Kirsten, Petersson, Karl Magnus, Hagoort, Peter and van Berkum, Jos J. A.. 2011. Understanding speaker meaning: neural correlates of pragmatic inferencing in discourse comprehension. Poster presented at the Neurobiology of Language Conference, March 2011, Annapolis.Google Scholar
Baxter, Leslie A. 1984. An investigation of compliance-gaining as politeness. Human Communication Research 10 (3): 427–56.Google Scholar
Beach, Cheryl M. 1991. The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structure ambiguity: evidence for cue trading relations. Journal of Memory and Language 30 (6): 644–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biesenbach-Lucas, Sigrun. 2007. Students writing emails to faculty: an examination of e-politeness among native and non-native speakers of English. Language Learning and Technology 11: 59–81.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1987. Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different? Journal of Pragmatics 11 (2): 131–46.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana and Olshtain, Elite. 1984. Requests and apologies: a cross cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5 (3): 196–213.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane and Kasper, Gabriele, eds. 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Boisvert, Daniel and Ludwig, Kirk. 2006. Semantics for nondeclaratives. In Smith, Barry C. and Lepore, Ernest, eds.,The Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 864–92.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and Form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bou-Franch, Patricia. 2011. Openings and closings in Spanish e-mail conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (6): 1772–85.Google Scholar
Gordon, Briggs and Scheutz, Matthias. 2013. A hybrid architectural approach to understanding and appropriately generating indirect speech acts. Proceedings of the Twenth-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Bellevue, WA, 1213–19.Google Scholar
Briggs, Gordon and Scheutz, Matthias. 2014. How robots can affect human behavior: investigating the effects of robotic displays of protest and distress. International Journal of Social Robotics 6: 343–55.Google Scholar
Briggs, Gordon, Williams, Tom and Scheutz, Matthias. 2017. Enabling robots to understand indirect speech acts in task-based interactions. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 6 (1): 64–94.Google Scholar
Brisard, Frank. 2011. H. P. Grice. In Sbisá, Marina, ed., Philosophical Perspectives for Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 104–24.Google Scholar
Broadbent, Marianne and Kitzis, Ellen. 2005. The New CIO Leader: Setting the Agenda and Delivering Results. Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Brouwer, Harm, Fitz, Hartmut and Hoeks, John. 2012. Getting real about semantic illusions: rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research 1446:127–43.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champagne-Lavau, Maud, Herzig, Andreas, Nespoulous, Jean-Luc and Virbel, Jacques. 2002. Formalisation pluridisciplinaire de l’inférence d’actes de langage non littéraux. Information, Interaction, Intelligence: 197–225.Google Scholar
Chejnová, Pavla. 2014. Expressing politeness in the institutional e-mail communications of university students in the Czech Republic. Journal of Pragmatics 60: 175–92.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague and Paris: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ciardelli, Ivano, Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris. 2013. Inquisitive semantics: a new notion of meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass 7 (9): 459–76.Google Scholar
Ciardelli, Ivano, Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris. 2015. On the semantics and logic of declaratives and interrogatives. Synthese 192 (6): 1689–1728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Billy. 1993. Relevance and pseudo-imperatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 16 (1): 79–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Billy. 2013. Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1979. Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology 11: 430–77.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and Schunk, Dale H.. 1980. Polite responses to polite requests. Cognition 8: 111–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Coleman, Linda and Kay, Paul. 1981. Prototype semantics: the English word ‘lie’. Language 57 (1): 26–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, Seana and Lovett, Christopher. 2010. Comprehension of non-conventional indirect requests: an event-related brain potential study. Italian Journal of Linguistics 22 (1): 107–24.Google Scholar
Crosby, Faye and Nyquist, Linda. 1977. The female register: an empirical study of Lakoff’s hypothesis. Language in Society 6 (3): 313–22.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Eirlys E. 1986. The English Imperative. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2004. BYU–BNC. Online corpus, based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press. http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/, last accessed 14/11/2020.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990–present. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/, last accessed 14/11/2020.Google Scholar
Davis, Wayne. 1998. Implicature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decock, Sofie and Depraetere, Ilse. 2018. (In)directness and complaints: a reassessment. Journal of Pragmatics 132: 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demeure, Virginie, Bonnefon, Jean-François and Raufaste, Éric. 2007. Rôle de la face et de l’utilité dans l’interprétation d’énoncés ambigus question/requête et incompréhension/désaccord. Actes des 4e Journées Francophones Modèles Formels de l’Interaction (MFI 07), Paris, 30 May–1 June.Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse, Decock, Sofie and Ruytenbeek, Nicolas. 2021. Linguistic (in)directness in Twitter complaints: a contrastive analysis of railway complaint interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 171: 215–33.Google Scholar
Daantje, Derks, Bos, Arjan E. R. and von Grumbkow, Jasper. 2008. Emoticons in computer-mediated communication: social motives and social context. CyberPsychology and Behavior 11 (1): 99–101.Google Scholar
Eli, Dresner and Herring, Susan C.. 2010. Functions of the non-verbal in CMC: emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory 20: 249–68.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Polar questions. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin, eds., The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/116, last accessed 14/11/2020.Google Scholar
Egorova, Natalia, Pulvermüller, Friedemann and Shtyrov, Yury. 2014. Neural dynamics of speech act comprehension: an MEG study of naming and requesting. Brain Topography 27 (3): 375–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enfield, Nick J. 2014. Human agency and the infrastructure for requests. In Drew, Paul and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 35–53.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1976. Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 5(1): 25–66.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 1998. Politeness: a relevant issue for relevance theory. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 2004. Norms and principles: putting social and cognitive pragmatics together. In Márquez-Reiter, Rosina and Placencia, María E., eds., Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 347–71.Google Scholar
Falbo, Toni and Peplau, Leticia A.. 1980. Power strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38: 618–28.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert. 2007. Asking Questions: Using Meaningful Structures to Imply Ignorance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, Alan P., 1992. The four elementary forms of sociality: framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review 99: 689–723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flöck, Ilka. 2016. Requests in American and British English: A Contrastive Multi-method Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Francik, Ellen P. and Clark, Herbert H.. 1985. How to make requests that overcome obstacles to compliance. Journal of Memory and Language 24: 560–68.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1974. An examination of the performative analysis. Papers in Linguistics 7: 1–40.Google Scholar
Freytag, Vera. 2020. Exploring Politeness in Business Emails: A Mixed-Methods Analysis. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Fukushima, Saeko. 2000. Requests and Culture: Politeness in British English and Japanese. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fukushima, Saeko. 2015. In search of another understanding of politeness: from the perspective of attentiveness. Journal of Politeness Research 11 (2): 261–87.Google Scholar
Furmaniak, Grégory. 2010. A frame-based approach to modality: the case of obligation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 24 (1): 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Carpintero, Manuel. 2013. Explicit performatives revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 49 (1): 1–17.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1979. Contextual effects in understanding indirect requests. Discourse Processes 2: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1981. Memory for requests in conversation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20: 630–40.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1983. Do people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 9 (3): 524–33.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1986a. On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology 15 (1): 3–15.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1986b. What makes some indirect speech acts conventional? Journal of Memory and Language 25 (2): 181–96.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1987. Memory for requests in conversation revisited. The American Journal of Psychology 100 (2): 179–91.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 2014. Is a general theory of utterance interpretation really possible? Insights from the study of figurative language. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 28: 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. and Colston, Herbert. 2012. Interpreting Figurative Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel. 2002. Literal versus figurative language: different or equal? Journal of Pragmatics 34: 487–506.Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel. 2003. On Our Mind: Salience, Context and Figurative Language. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gísladóttir, Rosa S., Chwilla, Dorothee J., Schriefers, Herbert and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2012. Speech act recognition in conversation: experimental evidence. In Miyake, Naomi, Peebles, David and Cooper, Richard P., eds., Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society, 1596–1601.Google Scholar
Gísladóttir, Rosa S., Chwilla, Dorothee J. and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2015. Conversation electrified: ERP correlates of speech act recognition in underspecified utterances. PLoS ONE 10 (3): e0120068.Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2006. Concept delimitation and pragmatic implicature. Issues for the study of metonymy. In Kosecki, Krzysztof, ed., Perspectives on Metonymy. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 157–74.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1955. On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes 18: 213–31.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Goguen, Joseph and Linde, Charlotte. 1983. Linguistic Methodology for the Analysis of Aviation Accidents. Technical report, structural semantics. NASA Contractor Report 3741, Ames Research Center.Google Scholar
Grainger, Karen and Mills, Sara. 2016. Directness and Indirectness across Cultures. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1957. Meaning. Philosophical Review 66: 377–88.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41–58.Google Scholar
Groefsema, Marjolein. 1992. ‘Can you pass the salt?’ A short-circuited implicature? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 213–40.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen. 2007. The logic of interrogation. In Aloni, Maria, Butler, Alastair and Dekker, Paul, eds., Questions in Dynamic Semantics. Oxford and Amsterdam: Elsevier, 43–62.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen and Stokhof, Martin. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen and Stokhof, Martin. 1997. Questions. In van Benthem, Johan and ter Meulen, Alice, eds., Handbook of Logic and Language. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1055–1124.Google Scholar
Gunlogson, Christine. 2002. Declarative questions. In Jackson, Brendan, ed., Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 12. Ithaca: CLC Publications, 124–43.Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1972. Quandaries and the logic of rules. Journal of Philosophical Logic 1: 74–85.Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1987. Imperatives. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Han, Chung-Hye. 1998. The structure and interpretation of imperatives: mood and force in universal grammar. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Han, Chung-Hye. 2002. Interpreting interrogatives as rhetorical questions. Lingua 112: 201–29.Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2015. Im/Politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heinemann, Tine. 2006. ‘Will you or can’t you?’ Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (7): 1081–1104.Google Scholar
Hellbernd, Nele and Sammler, Daniela. 2016. Prosody conveys speaker’s intentions: acoustic cues for speech perception. Journal of Memory and Language 88: 70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendry, Jay and Watson, Bill, eds. 2001. An Anthropology of Indirect Communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C. 1994. Politeness in computer culture: why women thank and men flame. Cultural Performances: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 278–94. Berkeley Women and Language Group.Google Scholar
Hickey, Leo. 1992. Politeness apart: why choose indirect speech acts? Lingua e Stile 27 (1): 77–87.Google Scholar
Hinkelman, Elizabeth A. and Allen, James F.. 1989. Two constraints on speech act ambiguity. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of Association for Computational Linguistics, 212–219.Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry R. 1990. Literature and Cognition. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Hoeks, John C. J., Schoot, Lotte, Taylor, Ryan C. and Brouwer, Harm. 2013. Did you just say ‘NO’ to me? An ERP study on politeness in dialogue. Poster presented at XPRAG, September 2013, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Hofstede, Geert. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Holmqvist, Kenneth, Nyström, Marcus, Andersson, Richard, Dewhurst, Richard, Jarodzka, Halszka and van de Weijer, Joost. 2011. Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas R. 1986. Language structure in social interaction: perceptions of direct and indirect speech acts and interactants who use them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (2): 305–14.Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas R. 1991. Interpreting questions and replies: effects of face-threat, question form and gender. Social Psychology Quarterly 54 (1): 15–24.Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas R. 1992. The linguistic realization of face management: implications for language production and comprehension, person perception and cross-cultural communication. Social Psychology Quarterly 55 (2): 141–59.Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas R. 1994. Communication in context: effects of the speaker status on the comprehension of indirect requests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 20 (5): 1205–18.Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas R. 1998. Interpreting indirect replies. Cognitive Psychology 37: 1–27.Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas R. 2008. Automatic intention recognition in conversation processing. Journal of Memory and Language 58 (3): 627–45.Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas R. and Ashley, Aaron. 2001. Comprehending illocutionary force. Memory and Cognition 29: 83–90.Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas R. and Robinson, Caleb. 2020. Emoji can facilitate recognition of conveyed indirect meaning. PLoS ONE 15(4): e0232361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holtgraves, Thomas R. and Bonnefon, Jean-François. 2017. Experimental approaches to linguistic (im)politeness. In Culpeper, Jonathan, Haugh, Michael and Kadar, Daniel, eds., Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas and Yang, Joong-Nam. 1990. Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: general principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (4): 719–29.Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas, Srull, T. and Socall, D., 1989. Conversation memory: the effects of speaker status on memory for the assertiveness of conversation remarks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56: 149–60.Google Scholar
House, Juliane and Kasper, Gabriele. 1981. Politeness markers in English and German. In Coulmas, Florian, ed., Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 157–85.Google Scholar
Isaacs, Ellen A. and Clark, Herbert H.. 1990. Ostensible invitations. Language in Society 19 (4): 493–509.Google Scholar
Isac, Daniela. 2015. The Morphosyntax of Imperatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jary, Mark. 1998a. Is Relevance Theory social? Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 157–69.Google Scholar
Jary, Mark. 1998b. Relevance Theory and the communication of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 1–19.Google Scholar
Jary, Mark. 2007. Are explicit performatives assertions? Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 207–34.Google Scholar
Jary, Mark and Kissine, Mikhail. 2014. Imperatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo. 2007. Negativity bias in language: a cognitive-affective model of emotive intensifiers. Cognitive Linguistics 18 (3): 417–43.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Dan. 2006. Pragmatics and computational linguistics. In L.R. Horn and G. Ward, eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch26.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. and Postal, Paul. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kemper, Susan. 1980. Memory for the form and force of declaratives and interrogatives. Memory and Cognition 8 (4): 367–71.Google Scholar
Kemper, Susan and Thissen, David. 1981. Memory for the dimensions of requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20 (5): 552–63.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2001. ‘Je voudrais un p’tit bifteck’: la politesse à la française en site commercial. Les Carnets du CEDISCOR 7: 105–18.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2004. Politeness in France: how to buy bread politely. In Hickey, Leo and Stewart, Miranda, eds., Politeness in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 29–44.Google Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail. 2008. Locutionary, illocutionary, perlocutionary. Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (6): 1189–1202.Google Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail. 2013. From Utterances to Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika, 1977. What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (3): 337–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In von Stechow, Arnim and Wunderlich, Dieter, eds., Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 639–50.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin T. 1973a. Language and woman’s place. Language in Society 2: 45–80.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin T. 1973b. The logic of politeness; or minding your P’s and Q’s. In Corum, C., Smith-Stark, T C. and Weiser, A., eds., Proceedings of the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 292–305.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, James J. and Pinker, Steven. 2010. Rationales for indirect speech: the theory of the strategic speaker. Psychological Review 117 (3): 785–807.Google Scholar
Lee, Min Kyung and Makatchev, Maxim. 2010. How do people talk with a robot? An analysis of human-robot dialogues in the real world. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference: Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’ 2009, April 2009.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lehnert, Wendy G. 1978. The Process of Question Answering : A Computer Simulation of Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lepore, Ernie and Stone, Matthew. 2015. Imagination and Convention: Distinguishing Grammar and Inference in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 2012. Interrogative intimations: on a possible social economics of interrogatives. In de Ruiter, Jan P., ed., Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 11–32.Google Scholar
Liebrecht, Christine, Hustinx, Lettica and van Mulken, Margot. 2019. The relative power of negativity: the influence of language intensity on perceived strength. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 38 (2): 170–93.Google Scholar
Lim, Tae-Seop and Bowers, John W.. 1991. Facework solidarity, approbation and tact. Human Communication Research 17 (3): 415–50.Google Scholar
Linde, Charlotte. 1988. The quantitative study of communicative success: politeness and accidents in aviation discourse. Language in Society 17 (3): 375–99.Google Scholar
Longin, Dominique. 2006. Des raisons qu’ont certains actes à être indirects. Psychologie de l’Interaction 21–22: 237–58.Google Scholar
Magnifico, Cédric and Defrancq, Bart. 2016. Impoliteness in interpreting: a question of gender? Translation and Interpreting 8 (2): 26–45.Google Scholar
Magnifico, Cédric and Defrancq, Bart. 2017. Hedges in conference interpreting: the role of gender. Interpreting 19 (1): 21–46.Google Scholar
Manno, Giuseppe. 2002. La politesse et l’indirection: un essai de synthèse. Langage & Société 100 (2): 5–47.Google Scholar
Mastop, Rosja. 2005. What can you do? Imperative mood in semantic theory. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Mastop, Rosja. 2011. Imperatives as semantic primitives. Linguistics and Philosophy 34: 305–40.Google Scholar
McGinn, Colin. 1977. Charity, interpretation and belief. Journal of Philosophy 74: 521–35.Google Scholar
Merritt, Marilyn. 1976. On questions following questions in service encounters. Language in Society 5 (3): 315–57.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry L. 1978. Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Cole, Peter, ed., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9 of Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 261–80.Google Scholar
Munro, Allen. 1979. Indirect speech acts are not strictly conventional. Linguistic Inquiry 10 (2): 353–56.Google Scholar
Murphy, B. and Neu, J.. 1996. My grade’s too low: the speech act set of complaining. In Gass, S. M. and Neu, J., eds., Speech Acts across Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 191–216.Google Scholar
Neale, Stephen. 1992. Paul Grice and the philosophy of language. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 509–59.Google Scholar
Nickerson, Jill S. and Chu-Carroll, Jennifer. 1999. Acoustic-prosodic disambiguation of direct and indirect speech acts. Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, San Francisco. International Phonetic Association, 1309–12.Google Scholar
Ninan, Dilip. 2005. Two puzzles about deontic necessity. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 51: 149–78.Google Scholar
Ogiermann, Eva. 2007. Gender-based differences in English apology realizations. In Cross-Cultural Pragmatics and Interlanguage English, 127–42. München: Lincom Europe.Google Scholar
Ogiermann, Eva. 2009. Politeness and in-directness across cultures: a comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian requests. Journal of Politeness Research 5: 189–216.Google Scholar
Olshtain, Elite and Weinbach, Liora. 1993. Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. In Kasper, Gabriele and Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, eds., Interlanguage Pragmatics. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 108–22.Google Scholar
Pagin, Peter. 2004. Is assertion social? Journal of Pragmatics 36: 833–59.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Thornburg, Linda. 1998. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 755–69.Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Thornburg, Linda. 2004. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. Metaphorik.de 6: 91–116.Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Thornburg, Linda. 2005. Motivation and convention in some speech act constructions: a cognitive-linguistic approach. In Marmaridou, Sophia, Nikiforidou, Kiki and Antonopoulou, Eleni, eds., Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the 21st Century. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 53–76.Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna. 2007. Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Pérez Hernández, Lorena. 2013. Illocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs and specification links. Language and Communication 33: 128–49.Google Scholar
Pérez Hernández, Lorena and Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José. 2002. Grounding, semantic motivation and conceptual interaction in indirect directive speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 259–84.Google Scholar
Perrault, Raymond C. and Allen, James F.. 1980. A plan-based analysis of indirect speech acts. Computational Linguistics 6: 167–82.Google Scholar
Pichora-Fuller, M. Kathleen, Kramer, Sophia E., Eckert, Mark E. et al. 2016. Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear and Hearing 37: 5S–27S.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 2011. Indirect speech, politeness, deniability and relationship negotiation: comment on Marina Terkourafi’s ‘The Puzzle of Indirect Speech’. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2866–68.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven, Nowak, Martin A. and Lee, James J.. 2008. The logic of indirect speech. PNAS 105 (3): 833–38.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2004. The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In Watanabe, Kazuha and Young, Robert B., eds., Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, 235–52.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2007. Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics 15: 351–83.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2009. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Price, Patti J., Ostendorf, Mari, Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie and Fong, Cynthia. 1991. The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 90: 2956–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, Keith and Pollatsek, Alexander, 1989. The Psychology of Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith, Chace, Kathryn, Slattery, Timothy J. and Ashby, Jane. 2006. Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading 10: 241–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, François. 1980. Some remarks on explicit performatives, indirect speech acts, locutionary meaning and truth-value. In Searle, John R., Kiefer, Ferenc and Bierwisch, Manfred, eds., Texts and Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Vol. 10: Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 205–20.Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 1987. Meaning and Force: The Pragmatics of Performative Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4 (3): 328–50.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor and Mervis, Carolyn B.. 1975. Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7 (4): 573–605.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Jacobs, Roderick A. and Rosenbaum, Peter S., eds., Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Co., 222–72.Google Scholar
Ruytenbeek, Nicolas. 2017a. The comprehension of indirect requests: previous work and future directions. In Depraetere, Ilse and Salkie, Raphael, eds., Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
Ruytenbeek, Nicolas. 2017b. The mechanics of indirectness: a case study of directives. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels.Google Scholar
Ruytenbeek, Nicolas. 2019a. Current issues in the ontology and form of directive speech acts: a critical assessment of recent cognitive linguistic approaches. International Review of Pragmatics 11 (2): 200–221.Google Scholar
Ruytenbeek, Nicolas. 2019b. Lexical and morpho-syntactic modification of student requests: an empirical contribution to the study of im/politeness in French e-mail speech acts. Lexique 24: 29–47.Google Scholar
Ruytenbeek, Nicolas. 2020. Do indirect requests communicate politeness? An experimental study of conventionalized indirect requests in French email communication. Journal of Politeness Research 16 (1): 111–42.Google Scholar
Ruytenbeek, Nicolas, Ostashchenko, Ekaterina and Kissine, Mikhail. 2017. Indirect request processing, sentence-types and illocutionary forces. Journal of Pragmatics 119: 46–62.Google Scholar
Ruytenbeek, Nicolas, Decock, Sofie and Depraetere, Ilse. (in press). What makes a complaint (im)polite? Experiments into (in)directness and perceived face-threat in Twitter complaints. Journal of Politeness Research.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Harvey Sacks: Lectures on Conversation, Vol. 1, edited by Jefferson, Gail. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1974. Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. and Zwicky, Arnold M.. 1985. Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Shopen, Timothy, ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1: Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 155–96.Google Scholar
Saeli, Hooman. 2016. Persian favor asking in formal and informal academic contexts: the impact of gender and academic status. Pragmatics 26 (2): 315–44.Google Scholar
Saul, Jennifer M. 2002. What is said and psychological reality: Grice’s project and relevance theorists’ criticisms. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 347–72.Google Scholar
Savić, Mila. 2018. Lecturer perceptions of im/politeness and in/appropriateness in student e-mail requests: a Norwegian perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 124: 52–72.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1980. Preliminaries to preliminaries: ‘Can I ask you a question?’ Sociological Inquiry 50 (3–4): 104–52.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Stephen. 1972. Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schulenburg, David and Pazzani, Michael. J.. 1989. Explanation-Based Learning of Indirect Speech Act Interpretation Rules. Technical report, Irvine Computational Intelligence Project, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Searle, John. R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John. R. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 59–82.Google Scholar
Searle, John. R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. and Vanderveken, Daniel. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Amy M. and Murphy, Gregory. 1993. Can you answer a question for me? Processing indirect speech acts. Journal of Memory and Language 32 (2): 211–29.Google Scholar
Sifianou, Maria. 1993. Off-record indirectness and the notion of imposition. Multilingua 12 (1): 69–79.Google Scholar
Slugoski, Ben R. and Turnbull, William. 1988. Cruel to be kind and kind to be cruel: sarcasm, banter and social relations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 7 (2): 101–21.Google Scholar
Snedeker, Jesse and Trueswell, John. 2003. Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: effects of speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and Language 48 (1): 103–30.Google Scholar
Soltys, Jessica, Terkourafi, Marina and Katsos, Napoleon. 2014. Disentangling politeness theory and the strategic speaker approach: theoretical considerations and empirical predictions. Intercultural Pragmatics 11 (1): 31–56.Google Scholar
Spence, Janet T. and Helmreich, Robert L.. 1978. Masculinity and Femininity: Their Psychological Dimensions, Correlates and Antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stewart, Andrew, Le-luan, Elizabeth, Wood, Jeffrey, Yao, Bo and Haigh, Matthew. 2018. Comprehension of indirect requests is influenced by their degree of imposition. Discourse Processes 55 (2): 187–96.Google Scholar
Stoet, Geert. 2010. PsyToolkit: a software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods 42 (4), 1096–1104.Google Scholar
Stoet, Geert. 2017. PsyToolkit: a novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of Psychology 44 (1), 24–31.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E., 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Hidemitsu. 2012. A Cognitive Linguistic Analysis of the English Imperative: With Special Reference to Japanese Imperatives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tanck, Sharyl. 2002. Speech act sets of refusal and complaint: a comparison of native and non-native English speakers’ production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13 (1): 65–81.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1981. Indirectness in discourse: ethnicity as conversational style. Discourse Processes 4 (3): 221–38.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1990. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Morrow.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2003. Generalized and particularized implicatures of linguistic politeness. In Kühnlein, Peter, Rieser, Hannes and Zeevat, Henk, eds., Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 149–64.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2008. Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness and rudeness. In Bousfield, Derek and Locher, Miriam A., eds., Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, Language, Power and Social Process. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 45–74.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2011. The puzzle of indirect speech. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2861–65.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2014. The importance of being indirect. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 28: 45–70.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2015. Conventionalization: a new agenda for im/politeness research. Journal of Pragmatics 86: 11–18.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina and Villavicencio, Aline 2003. Toward a formalization of speech act functions of questions in conversation. In Bernardi, Raffaella and Moortgat, Michael, eds., Questions and Answers: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives. Utrecht: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, 108–119.Google Scholar
Thompson, Dominik and Filik, Ruth. 2016. Sarcasm in written communication: emoticons are efficient markers of intention. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 21 (2): 105–20.Google Scholar
Tobback, Els. 2014. A chacun son tour : analyse comparative des styles conversationnels des néerlandophones et des francophones de Belgique dans des débats télévisés. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 59 (3): 373–93.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 406–16.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Dasher, Richard B.. 2005. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tromp, Johanne, Hagoort, Peter and Meyer, Antje S.. 2016. Pupillometry reveals increased pupil size during indirect request comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69: 1093–1108.Google Scholar
Trosborg, Anna. 1995. Interlanguage pragmatics: requests, complaints and apologies. Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 7. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trott, Sean T. and Bergen, Benjamin. 2017. A theoretical model of indirect request comprehension. AAAI Fall Symposium Series.Google Scholar
Trott, Sean T., Reed, Stefanie, Ferreira, Victor and Bergen, Benjamin. 2019. Prosodic cues signal the intent of potential indirect requests. Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Upadhyay, Shiv R. 2003. Nepali requestive acts: linguistic indirectness and politeness reconsidered. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (10–11): 1651–77.Google Scholar
van Ackeren, Markus J., Casasanto, Daniel, Bekkering, Harold, Hagoort, Peter and Rueschemeyer, Shirley-Ann. 2012. Pragmatics in action: indirect requests engage theory of mind areas and the cortical motor network. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 24 (11): 2237–47.Google Scholar
van Tiel, Bob. 2020. Prototype effects in speech act concepts. https://osf.io/9h3j4/, last accessed 14/11/2020.Google Scholar
Vanderveken, Daniel. 1990. Meaning and Speech Acts, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vásquez, Camilla. 2011. Complaints online: the case of TripAdvisor. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1707–17.Google Scholar
Vega Moreno, Rosa E. 2007. Creativity and Convention: The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. Amsterda and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ward, Nigel G. 2019. Prosodic Patterns in English Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weizman, Elda. 1989. Requestive hints. In Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane and Kasper, Gabriele. eds., Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 71–95.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne. 2004. The intonation of please-requests: a corpus-based study. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1521–49.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985. Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 145–78.Google Scholar
Williams, Tom, Thames, Daria, Novakoff, Julia and Scheutz, Matthias. 2018. ‘Thank you for sharing that interesting fact!’ Effects of capability and context on indirect speech act use in task-based human-robot dialogue. HRI ’18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 298–306.Google Scholar
Williams, Tom, Núñez, Rafael C., Briggs, Gordon, Scheutz, Matthias, Premaratne, Kamal and Murthi, Manohar N.. 2014. A Dempster-Shafer theoretic approach to understanding indirect speech acts. In Ana, Bazzan and Pichara, Karim, eds., Advances in Artificial Intelligence – IBERAMIA 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8864. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Wilske, Sabrina and Kruijff, Geert-Jan. 2006. Service robots dealing with indirect speech acts. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan. 1988. Mood and the analysis of non-declarative sentences. In Dancy, Jonathan, Moravcsik, Julius M. E. and Taylor, Charles C. W., eds., Human Agency: Language, Duty and Value. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 77–101.Google Scholar
Yin, Chun-Po and Kuo, Feng-Yang. 2013. A study of how information system professionals comprehend indirect and direct speech acts in project communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 56 (3): 226–41.Google Scholar
Zaefferer, Dietmar. 1990. On the coding of sentential modality. In Bechert, Johannes, Bernini, Giuliano and Buridant, Claude, eds., Toward a Typology of European Languages. Proceedings of the Workshop Held at Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, 7–9 January 1988. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 215–37.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2008. Encoding the addressee in the syntax: evidence from English imperative subjects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26 (1): 185–218.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
×