Abbas, L. H. & Saad, Q. K. (2018). Iraqi EFL students’ linguistic strategies in approaching warning and prohibition. English Language Teaching, 11(12), 11–37.Google Scholar

Abbeduto, L., Furman, L. & Davies, B. (1989). Identifying speech acts from contextual and linguistic information. Language and Speech, 32(3), 189–203.Google Scholar

Achard, M. (2018). Teaching usage and concepts: toward a cognitive pedagogical grammar. In Tyler, A., Huang, L. & Jan, H., eds., What Is Applied Cognitive Linguistics? Answers from Current SLA Research. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Achard, M. & Niemeier, S., eds. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Akbari, K. A. & Sharifzadeh, A. (2013). An evaluation of Top Notch series. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 4(4), 60–73.Google Scholar

Aksoyalp, Y. & Toprak, T. E. (2015). Incorporating pragmatics in English language teaching: to what extent do EFL course book address speech acts? International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4(2), 125–133.Google Scholar

Alcón, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System, 33(3), 417–435.Google Scholar

Alcón, E. & Safont, P. (2001). Occurrence of exhortative speech acts in ELT materials and natural speech data: a focus on request, suggestion and advice realisation strategies. SELL: Studies in English Language and Linguistics, 3, 5–22.Google Scholar

Alshehri, E. & Abdulaziz, K. (2017). Using learners’ first language in the EFL classroom. IAFOR Journal of Language Learning, 3(1), 20–33.Google Scholar

Alston, W. P. (2000). Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Atay, D., Kurt, G., Çamlibel, Z., Ersin, P. & Kaslioglu, O. (2009). The role of intercultural competence in foreign language teaching. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 10(3), 123–135.Google Scholar

Auerbach, E. (1993). Re-examining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9–32.Google Scholar

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

Austin, J. (1979). Philosophical Papers, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bacelar da Silva, A. J. (2003). The effect of instruction on pragmatic development: teaching polite refusal in English. Second Language Studies, 22(1), 55–106.Google Scholar

Bach, K. (1998). Standardisation revisited. In Kasher, A., ed., Pragmatics: Critical Assessment. London: Routledge, pp. 712–722.Google Scholar

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

Baicchi, A. (2016). The role of syntax and semantics in constructional priming: experimental evidence from Italian university learners of English through a sentence-elicitation task. In De Knop, S. and Gaëtanelle, G., eds., Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 211–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Banerjee, J. & Carrell, P. L. (1988). Tuck in your shirt, you squid: suggestions in ESL. Language and Learning, 38(3), 313–364.Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). The relationship of form and meaning: a cross-sectional study of tense and aspect in the interlanguage of learners of English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 253–278.Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In Rose, K. and Kasper, G., eds., Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognise pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. S. (1996). Input in an institutional setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 171–188.Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003). Teaching Pragmatics. Washington, DC: United States Department of State.Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Mossman, S. (2016). Corpus-based materials development for teaching and learning pragmatic routines. In Tomlinson, B., ed., SLA Research and Materials Development for Language Learning. New York: Routledge, pp. 250–267.Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S. & Su, Y. (2017). The effect of corpus-based instruction on pragmatic routine. Language Learning & Technology, 21(3), 76–103.Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S. & Vellenga, H. E. (2014a). Developing corpus-based materials to teach pragmatic routines. TESOL Journal, 6(3), 499–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S. & Vellenga, H. E. (2014b). The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research, 19(3), 324–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barron, A. (2007). ‘Can you take the other bed, please?’ An appraisal of request presentation in EFL textbooks. Paper presented at the 22nd Congress of the German Society for Foreign (and Second) Language Research, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany.Google Scholar

Bataineh, R. F. & Aljamal, M. A. (2009). Jordanian EFL and American Students’ Use of Warning in English: A Contrastive Study. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar

Bataller, R. (2013). Making a request for a service in Spanish: pragmatic development in the study abroad setting. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 160–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bertolet, R. (1994). Are there indirect speech acts? In Tsohatzidis, S. L., ed., Foundations of Speech Act Theory. Philosophical and Linguistic Perspective. London: Routledge, pp. 335–349.Google Scholar

Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S., eds., Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 43–57.Google Scholar

Blooth, A., Azman, H. & Ismail, K. (2014). The role of the L1 as a scaffolding tool in the EFL reading classroom. Procedia. Social and Behavioural Sciences, 118, 76–84.Google Scholar

Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: a study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29–59.Google Scholar

Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness: same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blum-Kulka, S. (1991). Interlanguage pragmatics: the case of requests. In Phillipson, R., Kellerman, E., Selinker, L., Sharwood Smith, M. & Swain, M., eds., Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 255–272.Google Scholar

Blum-Kulka, S. & House, J. (1989). Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behaviour. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G., eds., Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 123–154.Google Scholar

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Boers, F. & Demecheleer, M. (1998). A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. English Language Teaching Journal, 52(3), 197–204.Google Scholar

Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (2008). Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borer, B. (2018). Teaching and learning pragmatics and speech acts: an instructional pragmatics curriculum development project for EFL learners. School of Education Student Capstone Projects. Available at https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_cp/176.Google Scholar

Bouton, L. (1996). Pragmatics and Language Learning. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar

Boxer, D & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: the case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49(1), 44–58.Google Scholar

Brdar-Szabó, R. (2009). Metonymy in indirect directives: stand-alone conditionals in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian. In Panther, K. U., Thornburg, L. & Barcelona, A., eds., Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 323–336.Google Scholar

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bu, J. (2012). A study of the effects of explicit and implicit teachings on developing Chinese EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. International Journal of Language Studies, 6(3), 57–80.Google Scholar

Burkhardt, A. (1990). Speech at theory. The decline of a paradigm. In Bukhardt, A., ed., Speech Acts, Meaning, and Intentions. Critical Approaches to the Philosophy of John R. Searle. New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 91–128.Google Scholar

Butler, C. W., Potter, J., Danby, S., Emmison, M. & Hepburn, A. (2010). Advice-implicative interrogatives: building ‘client-centred’ support in a children's helpline. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(3), 265–287.Google Scholar

Byram, M. S. & Risager, K. (1999). Language Teachers, Politics and Cultures. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Carroll, D. (2011). Teaching preference organisation: learning how not to say ‘no’. In Houck, N. and Tatsuki, D., eds., Pragmatics: Teaching Natural Conversation. Alexandria: TESOL, pp. 105–118.Google Scholar

Carstens, A. (2002). Speech act theory in support of idealised warning models. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 20(4), 191–200.Google Scholar

Carter, R., Hughes, R. & McCarthy, M. (2000). Exploring Grammar in Context: Upper-Intermediate and Advanced. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Castro, P. (1999). La dimensión europea en la enseñanza/aprendizaje de lenguas extranjeras: la competencia intercultural. Lenguaje y Textos, 13, 41–53.Google Scholar

Castro, P., Sercu, L. & Garcia, M. C. M. (2004). Integrating language-and-culture teaching: an investigation of Spanish teachers’ perceptions of the objectives of foreign language education. Intercultural Education, 15(1), 91–104.Google Scholar

Cenoz, J. & Valencia, J. F. (1996). Cross-cultural communication and interlanguage pragmatics: American vs. European requests. In Bouton, L. F., ed., Pragmatics and Language Learning. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, pp. 47–53.Google Scholar

Chen, L. & Oller, J. W. (2008). The use of passives and alternatives in English by Chinese speakers. In De Knop, S. and De Rycker, T., eds., Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 385–415.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1964). Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology, 11(4), 430–477.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: a study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 14, 56–72.Google Scholar

Cohen, A. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: what can we expect from learners? Language Teaching, 41, 213–235.Google Scholar

Cohen, A. D. & Ishihara, N. (2013). Pragmatics. In Tomlinson, B., ed., Applied Linguistics and Material Development. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 113–126.Google Scholar

Coulson, S. & Lovett, C. (2010). Comprehension of non-conventional indirect requests: an event-related brain potential study. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 22(1), 107–124.Google Scholar

Crandall, E. & Basturkmen, H. (2004). Evaluating pragmatics-focused materials. English Language Teaching Journal, 58(1), 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crystal, D. (2010). The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Language, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dascal, M. (1989). On the roles of context and literal meaning in understanding. Cognitive Science, 13, 253–257.Google Scholar

De Knop, S. & De Rycker, T. (2008). Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G. (2016). Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Del Campo, N. (2013). Illocutionary Constructions in English: Cognitive Motivation and Linguistic Realisation. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Delen, B. & Tevil, Z. M. (2010). Evaluation of four coursebooks in terms of three speech acts: requests, refusals and complaints. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 692–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diepenbroek, L. G. & Derwing, T. (2013). To what extent do popular ESL textbooks incorporate oral fluency and pragmatic development? TESL Canada Journal, 30(7), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dik, S. C. (1989). The Theory of Functional Grammar: Part I: The Structure of the Clause. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Dik, S. C. (1997). The Theory of Functional Grammar: Part II: Complex and Derived Constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Dirven, R. (1985). Definition of a pedagogical grammar (seen from a linguist's point of view). ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics, 67(1), 43–67.Google Scholar

Dirven, R. (1990). Pedagogical grammar. Language Teaching, 23(1), 1–18.Google Scholar

Dirven, R. (2001). English phrasal verbs: theory and didactic application. In Putz, M., Niemeier, S. & Dirven, R., eds., Applied Cognitive Linguistics II: Language Pedagogy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 3–28.Google Scholar

Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1985). Actes de Langage et Théorie de L’énonciation. Collection ERA 642 (UA 04 1028). Paris: University of Paris 7 Press.Google Scholar

Edelhoff, C. (1993). English among the other European languages. English Language Learning in Europe: Issues, Tasks and Problems. Best of ELTECS Conference, Bratislava, pp. 27–38.Google Scholar

Edmondson, W. & House, J.. (1981). Let's Talk and Talk About It. Munich: Urban and Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar

Ekin, M. T. Y. (2013). Do current EFL coursebooks work for the development of L2 pragmatic competence? The case of suggestions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1306–1310.Google Scholar

Ellis, N. (2001). Form-Focus Instruction and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: a review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ervin-Tripp, S., Strage, A., Lampert, M. & Bell, N. (1987). Understanding requests. Linguistics, 25, 107–143.Google Scholar

Escandell, M. V. (1993). Introducción a la Pragmática. Barcelona: Anthropos.Google Scholar

Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. English Language Teaching Journal, 59(3), 199–208.Google Scholar

Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1989). Interlanguage request modification. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G., eds., Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 221–247.Google Scholar

Farashaiyan, A. & Muthusamy, P. (2017). The linguistic presentation of speech acts in Top-Notch Intermediate textbooks. International Journal of Linguistics, 9(3), 1–20.Google Scholar

Farashaiyan, A., Tan, K. H. & Shahragard, R. (2018). An evaluation of the pragmatics in the Cutting Edge Intermediate textbooks. 3L: Language, Linguistics and Literature: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 24(4), 158–170.Google Scholar

Fraser, B. (1974). An analysis of vernacular performative verbs. In Shuy, R. & Bailey, C. J., eds., Towards Tomorrow's Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 139–158.Google Scholar

Fujimori, J. & Houck, N. (2004). Practical criteria for teaching speech acts. The Language Teacher, 28(4), 3–9.Google Scholar

Fukushima, S. (2000). Requests and Culture: Politeness in British English and Japanese. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Geis, M. (1995). Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. (1979). Contextual effects in understanding indirect requests. Discourse Processes, 2, 1–10.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. (1984). Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8, 265–304.Google Scholar

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

Gibbs, R. W. (2002). A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 457–486.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. & Gerrig, R. (1989). How context makes metaphor comprehension seem ‘special’. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 4, 154–158.Google Scholar

Gisladottir, R. S., Chwilla, D. J. & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Conversation electrified: ERP correlates of speech act recognition in underspecified utterances. PLoS ONE, 10(3), 1–24.Google Scholar

Givon, T. (1989). Mind, Code, and Context. Essays in Pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Glaser, K. (2009). Acquiring pragmatic competence in a foreign language: mastering dispreferred speech acts. Topics in Linguistics, 4, 50–57.Google Scholar

Goddard, C. (2011). Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goddard, C. & Wierzbicka, A. (2013). Words and Meanings: Lexical Semantics Across Domains, Languages, and Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalisations in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E. & Suttle, L. (2010). Construction grammar. WIREs Cognitive Science, 1(4), 468–477.Google Scholar

Gonzálvez-García, F. (2019). Exploring the pedagogical potential of vertical and horizontal relations in the construction: the case of the family of subjective-transitive constructions with decir in Spanish. In Llopis-García, R. & Hijazo-Gascón, A., eds., Applied Cognitive Linguistics to L2 Acquisition and Learning: Research and Convergence. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 57(1), 121–145.Google Scholar

Gordon, D. & Lakoff, G. (1975). Conversational postulates. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3. Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 83–106.Google Scholar

Grant, L. & Starks, D. (2001). Screening appropriate teaching materials: closing from textbooks and television soap operas. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 39(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3. Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar

Griffiths, P. (2006). An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Grossi, V. (2009). Teaching pragmatic competence: compliments and compliment responses in the ESL classroom. Macquarie University, 24(2), 53–62.Google Scholar

Gu, X. (2011). The effect of explicit and implicit instructions of request strategies. Intercultural Communication Studies, 20(1), 104–123.Google Scholar

Hall, G. & Cook, G. (2013). Own-language use in ELT: exploring global practices and attitudes. ELT Research Paper, British Council, London.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotics: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. (1999). Construing Experience Through Meaning. London: Cassell.Google Scholar

Harrison, S. & Barlow, J. (2009). Politeness strategies and advice-giving in an online arthritis workshop. Journal of Politeness Research Language Behaviour Culture, 5(1), 93–111.Google Scholar

Harwood, N. (2014). Content, consumption, and production: three levels of textbook research. In Harwood, N., ed., English Language Teaching Textbooks: Content, Consumption, Production. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 1–41.Google Scholar

Haverkate, H. (1984). Speech Acts, Speakers, and Hearers: Reference and Referential Strategies in Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hayakawa, S. I. (1969). Modern Guide to Synonyms and Related Words. Darmstadt: Verlag.Google Scholar

Hengeveld, K. (2017). A hierarchical approach to grammaticalisation. In Hengeveld, K., Narrog, H. & Olbertz, H., eds., The Grammaticalisation of Tense, Aspect, Modality and Evidentiality. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 13–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heritage, J. & Sefi, S. (1992). Dilemmas of advice: aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first-time mothers. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 359–417.Google Scholar

Hernández-Flores, N. (1999). Politeness ideology in Spanish colloquial conversation. The case of advice. Pragmatics, 9(1), 37–49.Google Scholar

Hijazo-Gascón, A., Cadierno, T. & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2016). Learning the placement caused motion construction in L2 Spanish. In De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G., eds., Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 185–210.Google Scholar

Hinkel, E. (1997). Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple-choice data. Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 1–26.Google Scholar

Holdcroft, D. (1994). Indirect speech acts and propositional content. In Tsohatzidis, S. L., ed., Foundations of Speech Act Theory. Philosophical and Linguistic Perspective. London: Routledge, pp. 350–364.Google Scholar

Holme, R. (2009). Cognitive Linguistics and Language Teaching. London: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar

Holme, R. (2010). A construction grammar for the classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 48, 355–377.Google Scholar

Holmes, J. (1983). The structure of teachers’ directives. In Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. W., eds., Language and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–115.Google Scholar

Holtgraves, T. (1994). Communication in context: effects of speaker status on the comprehension of indirect requests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(5), 1205–1218.Google Scholar

House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 225–252.Google Scholar

House, M. & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In Coulmas, F., ed., Conversational Routine. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 157–185.Google Scholar

Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hutchby, I. (1995). Aspects of recipient design in expert advice giving on call-in radio. Discourse Processes, 19, 219–223.Google Scholar

Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. & Cheikh-Khamis, F. (2019). ‘How to become a woman without turning into a Barbie’: change-of-state verb constructions and their role in Spanish as a foreign language. In Llopis-García, R. & Hijazo-Gascón, A., eds., Applied Cognitive Linguistics to L2 Acquisition and Learning: Research and Convergence. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 57(1), 97–120.Google Scholar

Ishihara, N. (2010). Adapting textbooks for teaching pragmatics. In Ishihara, N. & Cohen, A. D., eds., Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. Harlow: Longman, pp. 145–165.Google Scholar

Ishihara, N. & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ishihara, N. & Maeda, M. (2010). Advanced Japanese: Communication in Context. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Jacobsen, N. D. (2012). Applying cognitive linguistics and task-supported language teaching to instruction of English conditional phrases. PhD thesis. Washington, DC: Georgetown University.Google Scholar

Jacobsen, N. (2015). A cognitive linguistic analysis of English conditionals in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) instruction: implications from sociocultural theory. In Masuda, K., Arnett, C. & Labarca, A., eds., Cognitive Linguistics and Sociocultural Theory: Applications for Second and Foreign Language Teaching. Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 103–129.Google Scholar

Jacobsen, N. (2018). The best of both worlds: combining Cognitive Linguistics and pedagogic tasks to teach English conditionals. Applied Linguistics, 39(5), 668–693.Google Scholar

Jiang, X. (2006). Suggestions: what should ESL students know? System, 34(1), 36–54.Google Scholar

Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Judd, E. L. (1999). Some issues in the teaching of pragmatic competence. In Hinkel, E. & Long, M. H., eds. Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 152–167.Google Scholar

Kachru, Y. (1994). Cross-cultural speech act research and the classroom. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 5, 39–51.Google Scholar

Kasper, G. (1989). Variation in interlanguage speech act realisation. In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D. & Selinker, L., eds., Variation in Second Language Acquisition: Discourse and Pragmatics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 37–58.Google Scholar

Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: towards discursive pragmatics. In Bardovi-Harlig, K., Félix-Brasdefer, C. & Omar, A. S., eds., Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11, pp. 281–314.Google Scholar

Kasper, G. & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Katz, J. J. (1990). Literal meaning and logical theory. In Bukhardt, A., ed., Speech Acts, Meaning, and Intentions. Critical Approaches to the Philosophy of John R. Searle. New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 229–258.Google Scholar

Kaufmann, M. (2012). Interpreting Imperatives. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Kempson, R. M. (1975). Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kissine, M. (2011). Misleading appearances: Searle, assertion, and meaning. Erkenntnis, 74, 115–129.Google Scholar

Kissine, M. (2012). Sentences, utterances, and speech acts. In Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 160–190.Google Scholar

Kissine, M. (2014). From Utterances to Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kissine, M. & Jary, M. (2014). Imperatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Koester, J. (2002). The performance of speech acts in workplace conversations and the teaching of communicative functions. System, 30(2), 167–184.Google Scholar

Koike, D. (1994). Negation in Spanish and English suggestions and requests: mitigating effects? Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 513–526.Google Scholar

Koike, D. (1996). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning. In Gass, S. M. & Neu, J., eds., Speech Acts across Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 257–281.Google Scholar

Koosha, B. & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. V. (2012). Investigating pragmatic competence: the case of requests in Interchange Series. Asian Social Science, 8(1), 54–61.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar as a basis for language instruction. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N., eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

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

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

Limberg, H. (2015). Principles for pragmatics teaching: apologies in the EFL classroom. English Language Teaching Journal, 69(3), 275–285.Google Scholar

Lindstromberg, S. (1996). Prepositions: meaning and method. English Language Teaching Journal, 50, 225–36.Google Scholar

Lindstromberg, S. & Boers, F. (2005). From movement to metaphor with manner-of-movement verbs. Applied Linguistics, 26, 241–61.Google Scholar

Littlemore, J. & Low, G. (2006). Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics, 27, 268–94.Google Scholar

Liu, D. (2010). Going beyond patterns: involving cognitive analysis in the learning of collocations. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 4–30.Google Scholar

LoCastro, V. (2012). Pragmatics for Language Educators. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. (2006). Advice-Giving in an American Internet Health Column. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Luomala, P. (2010). Pragmatics exercises and pragmatic metalanguage in English United textbooks series for Finnish upper secondary school. Master's thesis. University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar

Mandala, S. (1999). Exiting advice. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 9, 89–111.Google Scholar

Marcondes, D. (1984). Language and Action. A Reassessment of Speech Act Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Márquez-Reiter, R. (2002). A contrastive study of conventional indirectness in Spanish pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of The International Pragmatics Association, 12(2), 135–151.Google Scholar

Martínez-Flor, A. (2003). Non-native speakers’ production of advice acts: the effects of proficiency. Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 139–153.Google Scholar

Martínez-Flor, A. (2005). A theoretical review of the speech act of suggesting: towards a taxonomy for its use in FLT. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 18, 167–187.Google Scholar

Martínez-Flor, A. & Fukuya, Y. (2005). The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, 33(3), 463–480.Google Scholar

Masuda, K. (2018). Cognitive Linguistics and Japanese Pedagogy. A Usage-Based Approach to Language Learning and Instruction. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Matsumura, S. (2001). Learning the rules for offering advice: a quantitative approach to second language socialisation. Language Learning, 51, 635–679.Google Scholar

Matsumura, S. (2003). Modelling the relationships among interlanguage pragmatic development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 465–491.Google Scholar

Mauri, C. & Sansò, A. (2011). How directive constructions emerge: grammaticalisation, constructionalisation, cooptation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3489–3521.Google Scholar

McConachy, T. & Hata, K. (2013). Addressing textbook representations of pragmatics and culture. ELT Journal, 67(3), 294–301.Google Scholar

McGrath, I. (2002). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Merin, A. (1991). Imperative vs. philosophy. Linguistics, 29, 669–702.Google Scholar

Meunier, F. (2008). Corpora, cognition and pedagogical grammars: an account of convergences and divergences. In De Knop, S. & de Rycker, T. D., eds., Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar: A Volume in Honour of Rene Dirven. Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 91–121.Google Scholar

Mey, J. (1993). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Moradi, A., Karbalaei, A. R. & Afraz, S. (2013). A textbook evaluation of speech acts and language functions in high school English textbooks (I, II, and III) and Interchange series, books I, II, and III. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2(2), 323–335.Google Scholar

Morgan, J.L. (1978). Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Cole, P., ed., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 9. Pragmatics. London: Academic Press, pp. 261–280.Google Scholar

Morrow, C. (1995). The pragmatic effects of instruction on ESL learners’ production of complaint and refusal speech acts. Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, NY.Google Scholar

Neddar, B. A. (2010). Cross-cultural pragmatic information in Algerian textbooks. A paper presented as a web poster in the 4th International Conference on Intercultural Pragmatics. Madrid.Google Scholar

Neddar, B. A. (2012). Short notes on discourse, interlanguage pragmatics and EFL teaching: where do we stand? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 5687–5692.Google Scholar

Nguyen, M. Th. Th. (2011). Learning to communicate in a globalised world: to what extent do school textbooks facilitate the development of intercultural pragmatic competence? RELC Journal, 42(1), 17–30.Google Scholar

Niemeier, S. & Reif, M. (2008). Making progress simpler? Applying cognitive grammar to tense-aspect teaching. In de Knop, S. & de Rycker, T., eds., Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar: A Volume in Honour of Rene Dirven. Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 325–356.Google Scholar

Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.Google Scholar

Nourdad, N. & Roshani Khiabani, L. (2015). Pragmatic content analysis of newly developed Iranian EFL English textbooks. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 10(1), 24–39.Google Scholar

Panther, K. U. & Thornburg, L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769.Google Scholar

Panther, K. U. & Thornburg, L. (2003). Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas: the case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts. In Panther, K. U. & Thornburg, L., eds., Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 113). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 127–147.Google Scholar

Panther, K. U. & Thornburg, L. (2005). Motivation and convention in some speech act constructions: a cognitive-linguistic approach. In Marmaridou, S., Nikiforidou, K., & Antonopoulou, E., eds., Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the 21st Century. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 53–76.Google Scholar

Pérez-Hernández, L. (1996). The cognition of requests. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 4, 189–208.Google Scholar

Pérez-Hernández, L. (1999). Grounding politeness. Journal of English Studies, 1, 209–236.Google Scholar

Pérez-Hernández, L. (2001). Illocution and Cognition: A Constructional Approach. Logroño: University of La Rioja Press.Google Scholar

Pérez-Hernández, L. (2012). Saying something for a particular purpose: constructional compatibility and constructional families. Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25, 189–210.Google Scholar

Pérez-Hernández, L. (2013). Illocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language and Communication, 33, 128–149.Google Scholar

Pérez-Hernández, L. (2019). From research to the textbook: assessing speech acts representation in course book series for students of English as an L2. Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 248–276.Google Scholar

Pérez-Hernández, L. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2002). Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirect directive speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(3), 259–284.Google Scholar

Pérez-Hernández, L. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2011). A Lexical-Constructional Model account of illocution. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 98–137.Google Scholar

Petraki, E. & Bayes, S. (2013). Teaching oral requests: an evaluation of five English as second language coursebooks. Pragmatics, 23(3), 499–517.Google Scholar

Radden, G. (2014). Making sense of negated modals. Argumentum, 10, 519–532.Google Scholar

Rajabia, S., Azizifar, A. & Gowhary, H. (2015a). Investigating the explicit instruction of apology speech act on pragmatic development of Iranian EFL learners. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(4), 53–61.Google Scholar

Rajabia, S., Azizifara, A. & Gowhary, H. (2015b). The effect of explicit instruction on pragmatic competence development; teaching requests to EFL learners of English. Procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 231–239.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (1987). Meaning and Force. The Pragmatics of Performative Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (1994). Contextualism and anti-contextualism in the philosophy of language. In Tsohatzidis, S. L., ed., Foundations of Speech Act Theory. Philosophical and Linguistic Perspective. London: Routledge, pp. 156–166.Google Scholar

Ren, W. & Han, Z. (2016). The representation of pragmatic knowledge in recent ELT textbooks. English Language Teaching Journal, 70(4), 424–243.Google Scholar

Reza, N. & Zohreh, E. (2016). Critical perspectives on interlanguage pragmatic development: an agenda for research. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 25–50.Google Scholar

Richards, J. C. (1985). The Context of Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rintell, E. M. (1979). Getting your speech act together: the pragmatic ability of second language learners. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 17, 97–106.Google Scholar

Rintell, E. M. & Mitchel, C. J. (1989). Studying requests and apologies: an inquiry into method. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G., eds., Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 248–272.Google Scholar

Risselada, R. (1993). Imperatives and other directive expressions in Latin. A study in the pragmatics of a death language. Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben Publisher.Google Scholar

Römer, U. (2004). Comparing real and ideal language learner input: the use of an EFL textbook corpus in corpus linguistics and language teaching. In Aston, G., Bernardini, S. & Stewart, D., eds., Corpora and Language Learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 151–158.Google Scholar

Römer, U. (2006). Looking and ‘looking.’ Functions and contexts of progressives in spoken English and ‘school’ English. In Renouf, A. & Kehoe, A., eds., The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics: Papers from the 24th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerised Corpora (ICAME 24). Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 231–242.Google Scholar

Römer, U., O'Donnell, M. B. & Ellis, N. C. (2014). Second language learner knowledge of verb-argument constructions: effects of language transfer and typology. The Modern Language Journal, 98(4), 952–975.Google Scholar

Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effect of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385–399.Google Scholar

Rose, K. R. & Ng, C. K. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In Rose, K. R. & Kasper, G., eds., Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 145–170.Google Scholar

Ross, A. (2018). The pragmatics of requesting in the Canadian workplace: a comparative investigation of requests presented in workplace ESL textbooks and oral discourse completion task responses. PhD thesis. Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario.Google Scholar

Ross, J. R. (1970). On declarative sentences. In Jacobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S., eds., Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn, pp. 222–277.Google Scholar

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Agustin, P. (2016). Cognitive pedagogical grammar and meaning construction in L2. In De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G., eds., Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 151–184.Google Scholar

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Baicchi, A. (2007). Illocutionary constructions: cognitive motivation and linguistic realisation. In Kecskes, I. & Horn, L., eds., Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 95–128.Google Scholar

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Galera Masegosa, A. (2014). Cognitive Modelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Rutherford, W. E. (1987). Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Ruytenbeek, N. (2017). The comprehension of indirect requests: previous work and future directions. In Depraetere, I. & Salkie, R., eds., Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line. Amsterdam: Springer, pp. 293–322.Google Scholar

Ruytenbeek, N., Ostashchenko, E. & Kissine, M. (2017). Indirect request processing, sentence types and illocutionary forces. Journal of Pragmatics, 119, 46–62.Google Scholar

Sadock, J. M. (1974). Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Schauer, G. (2009). Interlanguage Pragmatics Development: The Study Abroad Context. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. Psathas, 1979, 23–78.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organisation in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.Google Scholar

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

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

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

Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sercu, L. (2002). Implementing intercultural foreign language education. Belgian, Danish and British teachers’ professional self-concepts and teaching practices. Evaluation and Research in Education, 16(3), 150–165.Google Scholar

Shaffer, D. E. (2004). Teaching particles with image schemas. The Internet TEFL Journal, 51, 1–16.Google Scholar

Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 159–68.Google Scholar

Shimizu, T., Fukasawa, E. & Yonekura, S. (2007). Introductions and practices of speech acts in oral communication 1 textbooks: from a viewpoint of interlanguage pragmatics. Sophia Linguistica: Working Papers in Linguistics, 55, 143–163.Google Scholar

Soozandehfar, S. M. A. & Sahragard, R. (2011). A textbook evaluation of speech acts and language functions in Top-Notch series. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(12), 1831–1838.Google Scholar

Spada, N. & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: a meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.Google Scholar

Spencer-Oatey, H. (1996). Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 1–24.Google Scholar

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

Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In Panther, K. U. & Thornburg, L., eds., Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–126.Google Scholar

Sung, M. & Yang, H. K. (2016). Effects of construction-centred instruction on Korean students’ learning of English transitive resultative constructions. In De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G., eds., Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 89–114.Google Scholar

Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289–310.Google Scholar

Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: where instructional studies were, are and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50.Google Scholar

Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In Rose, K. R. & Kasper, G., eds., Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 171–199.Google Scholar

Takahashi, S. (2005). Pragmalinguistic awareness: is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 26, 90–120.Google Scholar

Takahashi, S. (2012). A Cognitive Linguistic Analysis of the English Imperative. With Special Reference to Japanese Imperatives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100.Google Scholar

Tan, K. H. & Farashaiyan, A. (2016). Challenges in teaching interlanguage pragmatics at private EFL institutes in Iran. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 24(3): 45–54.Google Scholar

Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatics routines: Japanese ‘sumimasen’. In Rose, K. R. & Kasper, G., eds., Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 200–222.Google Scholar

Tateyama, Y., Kasper, G., Mui, L., Tay, H. M. & Thananart, O. (1997). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines. In Bouton, L., ed., Pragmatics and Language Learning, 8. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, pp. 163–177.Google Scholar

Tatsuki, D. H. & Houck, N. R. (2010). Pragmatics: Teaching Speech Acts. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar

Taylor, J. R. (2008). Some pedagogical implications of cognitive linguistics. In De Knop, S. & De Rycker, T., eds., Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 37–67.Google Scholar

Tello Rueda, Y. (2016). Developing pragmatic competence in a foreign language. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 8, 169–182.Google Scholar

Thibault, P. J. & Van Leuween, T. (1996). Grammar, society and the speech act: renewing the connections. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 561–585.Google Scholar

Tomlinson, B. (2013). Introduction: applied linguistics and materials development. In Tomlinson, B., ed., Applied Linguistics and Materials Development. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar

Tomlinson, B., Dat, B., Masuhara, H. & Rubdy, R. (2001). ELT courses for adults. English Language Teaching Journal, 55(1), 80–101.Google Scholar

Ton Nu, A. T. (2018). How EFL textbooks accommodate pragmatics: an investigation into a newly published textbook series for Vietnamese upper-secondary school students. English Australia Journal, 33(2), 37–43.Google Scholar

Tromp, J., Hagoort, P. & Meyer, A. S. (2016). Pupillometry reveals increased pupil size during indirect request comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(6), 1093–1108.Google Scholar

Trosborg, J. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Trott, S. (2016). The interpretation of indirect speech acts. Available at https://seantrott.com/2016/12/10/the-interpretation-of-indirect-requests/.Google Scholar

Tsui, A. B. M. (1994). English Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Learning: Theoretical Basics and Experimental Evidence. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2004). Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar: the case of over. In Achard, M. & Niemeier, S., eds., Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching. Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 257–281.Google Scholar

Tyler, A., Mueller, C. & Ho, V. (2011). Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English to, for, and at: an experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 181–205.Google Scholar

Ulum, O. G. (2015). Pragmatic elements in EFL course books. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Science, 1, 93–106.Google Scholar

Usó-Juan, E. (2008). The presentation and practice of the communicative act of requesting in textbooks: focusing on modifiers. In Alcón, E. & Safont Jordà, M. P., eds., Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 223–243.Google Scholar

Valdman, A. (2003). The acquisition of sociostylistic and sociopragmatic variation by instructed second language learners: the elaboration of pedagogical norms. In Sieloff Magnan, S., ed., Issues in Language Program Direction. Boston, MA: Heinle, pp. 57–78.Google Scholar

Valenzuela, J. & Rojo, A. M. (2008). What can language learners tell about constructions? In De Knop, S. & De Rycker, T., eds., Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 197–230.Google Scholar

Van Ackeren, M.J., Casasanto, D., Bekkering, H., Hagoort, P. & Rueschemeyer, S-A. (2012). Pragmatics in action: indirect requests engage theory of mind areas and the cortical motor network. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(11), 2237–2247.Google Scholar

Vassilaki, E. (2017). Cognitive motivation in the linguistic realisation of requests in Modern Greek. In Athanasiadou, A., ed., Studies in Figurative Thought and Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–124.Google Scholar

Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: how likely? The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 8(2), 1–18.Google Scholar

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

Wardhaugh, R. (1985). How Conversation Works. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Widdowson, H. (2003). Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. (1987). English Speech Act Verbs. A Semantic Dictionary. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Wildner-Bassett, M. (1994). Intercultural pragmatics and proficiency: ‘Polite Noises’ for cultural awareness. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 32(1), 3–17.Google Scholar

Wong, J. (2002). ‘Applying’ conversation analysis in applied linguistics: evaluating dialogue in English as a second language textbooks. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 40, 37–60.Google Scholar

Wunderlich, D. (1980). Methodological remarks on speech act theory. In Seale, J. R., Kiefer, F. & Bierwisch, M., eds., Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 291–312.Google Scholar

Yasuda, S. (2010). Learning phrasal verbs through conceptual metaphors: a case of Japanese EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 250–273.Google Scholar

Yin, Ch. P. & Kuo, F. Y. (2013). A study of how information system professionals comprehend indirect and direct speech acts in project communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 56(3): 226–241.Google Scholar