Book contents
- Indirect Speech Acts
- Key Topics in Semantics and Pragmatics
- Indirect Speech Acts
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Tables
- Figures
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- 1 Classic Speech Act Theoretic Approaches
- 2 The Semantics of Sentence-Types
- 3 Cognitive and Relevance-Based Approaches
- 4 The Comprehension of ISAs
- 5 Indirectness, Politeness and the Social Context
- 6 Computational and Artificial Intelligence Approaches to Indirectness
- Conclusion
- Glossary
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2021
Book contents
- Indirect Speech Acts
- Key Topics in Semantics and Pragmatics
- Indirect Speech Acts
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Tables
- Figures
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- 1 Classic Speech Act Theoretic Approaches
- 2 The Semantics of Sentence-Types
- 3 Cognitive and Relevance-Based Approaches
- 4 The Comprehension of ISAs
- 5 Indirectness, Politeness and the Social Context
- 6 Computational and Artificial Intelligence Approaches to Indirectness
- Conclusion
- Glossary
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Indirect Speech Acts , pp. 206 - 220Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
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
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
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
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, Herbert H.
1979. Responding to indirect speech
acts. Cognitive Psychology
11: 430–77.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and
Schunk, Dale H.. 1980.
Polite responses to polite requests.
Cognition
8: 111–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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. 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
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
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
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
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