1 Introduction 2 Speech Act Theory: Examining Language at the Utterance Level

Notes

1 Introduction

1. An initial distinction of this type can be found in Dascal (1983) under 'socio­ pragmatics' and 'psychopragmatics'. 2. For a detailed historical account of the development of the study of spoken discourse (el discurso oral) in Spanish from 1950 to 1999, including aspects of pragmatics as defined here, the reader is referred to Cortes Rodriguez (2002).

2 Speech Act Theory: Examining Language at the Utterance Level

1. One of Grewendorf's (2002) arguments, for instance, has to do with felicity conditions:

If in uttering a performative we implicitly performed the act of making a statement and explicitly performed the act denoted by the performative verb, then performatives would be subject to two different sets of felicity conditions: the conditions for the act of making a statement and the con­ ditions for the act denoted by the performative verb (p. 33).

Grewendorf, nonetheless, provides examples that show that only one set of conditions can be fulfilled. 2. Achugar (2002) defines piropos as compliments with an amorous or sexual tone, normally issued to strangers in the street and normally performed for an audience. It should be noted, however, that although Achugar's distinc­ tion between piropos and other types of compliments stands for ES, it does not necessarily hold for all varieties of Spanish. 3. See a related idea under the notion of adjacency pairs within conversation analysis (3.3.1). 4. In his seminal work, Speech Acts. An Essay on the Philosophy ofLanguage, Searle (1969) outlines his overall speech act theory, offering a detailed, rule-based characterization of speech acts. Searle (197 5) develops the notion of indirect speech acts, and, finally, Searle (1976) offers a taxonomy of speech acts. Searle's 1975 and 1976 publications are also contained, with slight modifi­ cations, in Expression and Meaning (Searle, 1979). 5. This example was obtained through participant observation. All other exam­ ples in the book where the source is not stipulated were obtained in the same manner. 6. Goodwin and Duranti (1992) express a related criticism when they point out that, with Searle's development of the theory, interest shifted from conven­ tions and context to a focus on intentionality, leaving out 'reference to soci-

231 232 Notes

eta! norms or conventions that may exist outside of the speaker's conscious intentions to communicate' (p. 18). 7. This view can be more clearly inferred from Searle, 1975. 8. Example from Miranda Stewart, personal communication. 9. Alston (1991) notes that Searle does not provide an unambiguous definition of 'point' or 'purpose', so it is not clear whether purpose is intended to mean the same as point, such as to commit the speaker to what is promised, in the case of promises, or whether it refers to the speaker's purpose, which may be a variety of things. 10. Alston (1991) notes that there is an oddity in having expressives as a sepa­ rate category of illocutionary acts where 'something which is a feature of all illocutionary acts is here [in the case of expressives] the basic illocutionary point' (p. 73). 11. See also Gonzalez Mangas's (2000) analysis of how participants in the exchange listed under (30) arrive at each other's intended meaning. 12. Some requests, as Blum-Kulka eta/. (1989, p. 276) acknowledge, can be mul­ tiple-headed; that is, they may have more than one minimal unit realizing the requestive goal, as in 'Clean up the kitchen. Get rid of this mess'. 13. Blum-Kulka and House (1989) relabel this category as 'impositives', whereas they refer to strong and mild hints (non-conventional indirectness) as 'hints' only. 14. The notion of 'hedged performatives' belongs to Fraser (1975). 15. This is in contrast to the view expressed by Leech (1983), for whom a scale of (in)directness can be established and who associates indirectness with ten­ tativeness, 'the more indirect an illocution is, the more diminished and ten­ tative its force tends to be' (p. 108). This does not mean, however, that all indirectness leads to more politeness. 'Can't you sit down?' is an example Leech (1983) provides of indirectness leading to less politeness. 16. Blum-Kulka et al.'s (1989) basic notions of head acts and levels of directness, and internal and external modification have been applied to the analysis of invitations (Garcia, 1999) and reprimands (Garcia, 1996), among other speech acts. Placencia (2000), however, notes that the application of these notions can be problematic with complex speech acts (such as, complaints, made up of chains of acts with multiple functions), where it can be difficult to identify a central head act, as House and Kasper (1981) or Olshtain and Weinbach (1987) have done in their studies. 17. Additionally, Pratt (1981) points out that people do not always speak for themselves, but 'for or through other people' (p. 9); that is, in some sort of institutionalized role, where the intentions are not those of the private individual. 18. Hence, building on Wittgenstein's notion of language games, Levinson (1979) proposes the notion of activity types within which utterances are embedded and within which they have to be examined. Allwood (1995) and Linell (1996), on the other hand, discuss related proposals under the notions of an activity based approach to meaning and communicative projects, respectively. 19. Pratt (1981) goes even further when she accentuates the overemphasis within the theory on one-to-one, private communication: the norm within the theory is to have a speaker formulating his/her intention and a hearer Notes 233

understanding that intention, while speech situations often involve multi­ ple participants with multiple intentions toward one another. 20. The notion of inter-act, rather than speech act, is thus proposed by Linen (1996) to emphasize the collaborative nature of communicative actions (see also Linen and Markova, 1993). 21. In Haverkate's (1979) view, verbs such as, 'persuade' or 'convince', which in Austin and Searle's proposals appear as perlocutionary acts, are not speech acts as such; it is possible, therefore, to refer only to their 'effect' on the hearer. 22. In his 1994 publication, Haverkate follows Searle (1969), subsuming the referring and predicating acts under the propositional act. 23. Haverkate (1984) modifies his model slightly retaining the notion of allo­ cution not as a subact, but as the strategical component of the speech act that influences the performance of the different subacts. He does so in order to 'make it clear that speakers develop specific strategies in performing each of the subacts of the speech act' (p. 45). 24. See also Ortega Olivares (1985). 25. On the function of t.me entendes? in AS in the context of informal interac­ tions, see Boretti (1999). 26. It should be noted that the overview of speech act studies that we offer con­ centrates on those based on corpora of spoken data, usually within particu­ lar sociocultural contexts. Other studies, which are based on literary works, for example, or for which no indication of the corpus employed is given, have not been included. It should also be noted that we only report on studies published in Spanish and English. This applies to the other chapters in the book too. 27. The label 'single language and culture' does not imply that researchers nec­ essarily regard culture as fully homogeneous. In fact, variation in speech act realization is often studied in relation to considerations of stable character­ istics of the participants (mainly age and sex), as well as situated features (such as the degree of social distance obtaining between the participants in an interaction, power and ranking of the imposition) (Brown and Levinson, 1978, 1987). This is also the case in cross-cultural studies. 28. We refer here to situations where people with different cultural backgrounds interact in the same language, which might be the first language for both groups, or the first for one group and the second or later language for the other (see Clyne, 1998 for related distinctions). In the latter case, the inter­ language of the group becomes the focus of examination. 29. In the broadest sense, Blum-Kulka and Sheffer (1993) define interlanguage pragmatics as 'concerned with the ways in which nonnatives do things with words in a second language' (p.l96). They say that, although 'we have been used to thinking about interlanguage as an L2 (second language) specific notion' (p. 197), in bilingual situations like the ones they examine in their study, the participants are 'in effect, in contact with two incongruent prag­ matic systems, each realized by a culturally specific style of language use' (p. 197). According to this definition, some intercultural studies may also be subsumed under interlanguage; however, the notion might be relevant when describing the language of one of the participants, but not necessarily of both. 30. Intercultural encounters may take place in bilingual contexts. Nevertheless, 234 Notes

here we keep the distinction between intercultural and bilingual studies in order to distinguish those studies that deal with two cultural groups in interaction (intercultural studies) from those where members from the same cultural group, who have the influence from two or more languages and cultures, interact with one another, as in the case of Chicanos interacting with other Chicanos (see, for example, Yanez, 1990 here). 31. See also Ferrer and Sanchez Lanza's (1998) examination of features of requests and commands. 32. It should be noted that Blum-Kulka and House (1989) comment on the need to examine a larger sample of Argentinian Spanish to further confirm the results of their study. They indicate, nonetheless, that 'there is evidence to suggest that they [the results of their study] reliably reflect a general Spanish trend for higher levels of directness than those acceptable in English' (p. 135). 33. It should be noted that, while for Curc6 and de Fina (2002) negative ques­ tions like the ones described by Arellano (2000) also constitute mitigated forms in Mexican Spanish (although not in Peninsular Spanish), other scholars are of a different opinion with respect to Mexican (Koike, 1994), Uruguayan (Marquez Reiter, 2000), and Chilean (Hardin, 2001) Spanish (see Chapters 4 and S). 34. NN represents the name or term of address employed. 35. Although Pilleux examines a few directives, assertives/representatives are the focus of his study. 36. The reader is also referred to the work of Fitch (1990/1991) which offers an analysis that clearly illustrates the cultural embeddedness of the speech event of leave-taking in urban Colombia (Bogota).

3 Conversation Analysis: Examining Stretches of Talk

1. For publications outlining the CA perspective and tracking its main devel­ opments in greater detail, see Heritage (1984b, 1989); Zimmerman (1988); Pomerantz and Fehr (1997); Hutchby and Wooffitt (1998); and ten Have (1999), amongst others. 2. See Clayman and Maynard (1995) for a description of the perspective offered by conventional sociology vis-a-vis ethnomethodology, on which CA is grounded. 3. Although Harvey Sacks is rightly regarded as the founding father of the field, it has to be acknowledged that it is the work of Emanuel Schegloff over more than three decades that has greatly contributed to its develop­ ment, placing him as 'the leading contemporary authority in the field' (Heritage, 2003, p. 1). For a list of Schegloff's publications, see Eerdmans (2003). 4. For other sources of influence on Sacks's thinking, see, for example, Heritage (2001) and Silverman (1993a). Heritage notes that Sacks was also influenced by the work of Erving Goffman. In fact, Heritage suggests that CA took from Goffman the notion that talk is 'a fundamental social domain that can be studied as an institutional entity in its own right' (2001, p. 52). This is a notion that Goffman, as Heritage acknowledges, did not succeed in devel- Notes 235

oping since he failed to address concerns that are fundamental to CA, such as 'how the participants understand one another in interaction' and how 'they share their understandings' (2001, p. 49) On the other hand, Silver­ man (1993a) suggests that Sacks shared concerns with the American linguist N. Chomsky in that in the same way Chomsky (1965) attempted to con­ struct generative rules, Sacks attempted to 'construct an apparatus that would generate observed outcomes' (Silverman, 1993a, p. 735). However, Sil­ verman (1993a) is quick to underline a basic difference between Sacks and Chomsky's approach to the study of language:

unlike both Chomsky and Saussure, who are principally concerned with deciphering the rules of language beneath imagined cases, Sacks seeks to understand the rules that participants attend to in sequences of conver­ sation. (p. 735)

5. Most of Sacks's work was initially known through copies of the lectures he gave at UCLA and UC Irvine before his premature death in 1975. These lec­ tures appeared in printed form only in 1992 in an edition produced by G. Jefferson 1995 [1992]. In references to these lectures within the text, LC stands for 'Lectures in Conversation'; 1 stands for volume 1, and 2, for volume 2. The lecture number will be specified if reference is made to the lecture as a whole (for example, Lecture 1). 6. Sacks's stance on this matter, however, may be regarded as extreme if one considers that plays, which involve constructed dialogues of varying lengths, have been written for centuries; that is, people do have a sense of sequen­ tiality in interaction (Lars Fant, personal communication). On the other hand, we agree with conversation analysts that for linguistic analyses, recon­ structions of interactions from memory can be highly inaccurate. 7. Out of line with most CA practitioners, Hopper (1999) suggests looking at social interaction as reflected in film as an area of future development for CA. This suggestion is within his more global proposal for a need to build bridges with critical studies, to demonstrate through microanalyses of staged interaction how ideology is constructed. 8. Following this line of reasoning, data from simulations as these employed by a number of scholars in Scandinavia (see 3.5.1 and 3.5.3) would be more 'natural' than open role-play data, for example, in that the simulations were set up for professional training purposes rather than linguistic research. 9. For an introduction to transcription conventions employed by conversation analysts, the reader is referred to the following addresses, where a module/tutorial on transcription is offered: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/ faculty/schegloff/ (accessed on 20 June, 2004); http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/ -ssca1/index.htm (accessed on 20 June, 2004) (see also 6.2.2). 10. In order to highlight that CA's interests are not restricted to the examina­ tion of conversation, following Schegloff (1982), many scholars nowadays employ the term 'talk-in-interaction' in descriptions of the object of study of conversation analysts. 11. There are references to institutional talk in Sacks's lectures, as Silverman (1993a) highlights. However, Sacks did not give much attention to this type of talk. 236 Notes

12. Hammersley (2003, p. 759) remarks that it is not entirely clear what the data for CA is. In addition to the analyst-as-member's interpretations of the transcripts and/or recordings, the author considers (a) the features of the particular conversational interactions under study; (b) audio- or video-recordings of those interactions; and (c) transcripts of those recordings. 13. In their analyses of discourse, some Hispanists consider aspects of nonver­ bal language, such as gaze and gesture (see 3.6). However, non-verbal lan­ guage has not been the focus of any of the studies considered and the analyses offered do not build on the work of conversation analysts in the area (Goodwin, 1984), but rather on work in social psychology where gaze and gesture tend to be analysed in quantitative terms. 14. There is another strand of research initiated by Sacks that corresponds to the study of 'membership categorization devices' (MCD), and that departs from core CA work and is, therefore, not considered here. See Schegloff (1995[1992]) for a consideration of some problems with this area from a CA perspective, and Silverman (1998) for a different view on this matter. For work on MCD by Hispanists, see Ciapusco and Kesselheim (1997), Kessel­ heim (2002) and Ramirez Saborio (2000), amongst others. 15. This is a criticism that has previously been directed towards ethnomethod­ ology, from which CA derives (Giddens, 1977). 16. Developments in the study of turn-taking have also come from other fields, such as (social) psychology, as in the work of Starkey Duncan, Jr and Donald W. Fiske (Duncan, 1972, 1974; Duncan and Fiske, 1985). These scholars have provided a model for the exchange of turns in dyadic, face-to-face interac­ tions that takes into account language, paralanguage and body motion. Some Hispanists (see 3.5) refer to (aspects of) their work in conjunction with Sacks et al.'s (1974) model. 17. On closings, see also the work of Button (1987, 1990, 1991). 18. For a presentation in Spanish of conversation analysts' work on openings and closings, with examples in Spanish taken from naturally occurring inter­ actions, see Gallardo Pauls (1993a). 19. See Chapter 6 in relation to differences concerning the social sciences paradigms conversation analysis and sociopragmatics derive from, which underlie some of the differences between conversation analysis and socio­ pragmatics in the approach to data collection and analysis discussed here. 20. An overt agreement as a response to a compliment does not seem to be a preferred response in American English as it would imply self-praise. Pomer­ antz (1978) describes how conversationalists in American English deal with the dilemma of accepting a compliment while at the same time avoiding self-praise. 21. On repair, see also jefferson (1987) and Schegloff (1992b), amongst others. 22. See also Glenn (2003). 23. For a review of conversation analysts' early work on topic organization, presented in Spanish, see Gallardo Pauls (1993a) and Nieto Garcia (1995). For more recent influential work in the area, see Svenneving (1999). 24. See also Button and Casey (1985), and Button (1991). 25. It should be noted, however, that an interest in 'natural language' within Notes 237

sociopragmatics also developed under the influence of sociolinguistics and the ethnography of communication (see Chapter 1). 26. See also Schegloff (1999) for a discussion of ways in which CA and discourse analysis can 'co-exist'. 27. Amongst Hispanists, see Hamel (1983) for a criticism of CA along similar lines. 28. Some publications by Hispanists appear under the title of 'analisis de la conversaci6n' or 'analisis conversacional' but they represent only partially ethnomethodological CA work as they include different approaches to the study of conversation. Gallardo Pauls (1996) and Tus6n Valls (1997) are two cases in point. 29. It should be noted that in this chapter, as in other chapters, we report on studies by Hispanists available in Spanish or English only. 30. For studies on turn-taking from a sociolinguistic perspective, the reader is referred to the work of Cestero Mancera (1994a, 1994b, 1999, 2000). 31. See also Baft6n Hernandez (1996). 32. As is common knowledge, Sinclair and Coulthard's (1975) three-part exchange unit is not a CA notion, but belongs to the Birmingham School of Discourse Analysis. This is yet another example of how analytic concepts from different areas (that is, CA and Discourse Analysis) can be coherently employed. 33. Also of interest, but from a discourse analytic perspective that aims to link CA style microanalyses of interaction with discourse analytic macro­ analyses of social structures and institutions (Harris, 1989), is Carbo's (1992) study of interruptions in Mexican parliamentary discourse. 34. The maxim reads as follows: 'Di por lo menos alga' y 'Deja que los demas digan por lo menos alga' (Musselman Shank 2002a, p. 24) 35. Within Spanish pragmatics, see also Gallardo Pauls (1993b); for example, for a consideration of related notions (that is, 'collaborative' and 'competitive' interruptions). 36. Based on the analysis of telephone conversations in British English and Ecuadorian Spanish, Placencia (1991) proposed an approach that combines description with explanation. This proposal includes examining four levels of talk - the underlying organization of telephone conversations, which is presented in the form of paths and moves, the surface linguistic representa­ tion of moves, the politeness orientations (Brown and Levinson, 1987) behind moves and linguistic choices, and the motivations behind politeness orientations; that is, considerations related to features of the sociocultural context. 37. Of allied interest is Placencia's (1997b) examination of the function of address forms in telephone conversations in Ecuadorian Spanish, including openings and closings. 38. The presentation of Avila Munoz's examples has been slightly simplified to make them more accessible to the reader. 39. See also Bou Franch and Gregori Signes (1999) in 3.5.1 in this respect. 40. Preference in repair sequences has also been the object of examination by Hispanists within applied linguistics as can be seen in Buckwalter's (2001) study on repair sequences among university students of Spanish as 12. 238 Notes

4 Examining Linguistic Politeness Phenomena

1. According to Haverkate, metalinguistic politeness is associated with conver­ sational etiquette and phatic communion (Malinoswki, 1930). 2. It should be noted that yet another approach exists, namely, Watts's (1989, 2003) 'politic behaviour'. Here politeness is understood as a (non)linguistic, activity aimed at establishing and/or maintaining the equilibrium or social status quo of interpersonal relationships within the wider context of 'politic behaviour'. This approach has few adherents probably owing to the fact that Watts does not stipulate how politeness is actually empirically realized. 3. Grice distinguished between generalized and particularized implicatures. The former are context independent, as in the use of figurative language, while the latter are context dependent and arise from the flouting/violation of the maxim(s), as in the case of example(2). 4. Positive politeness and negative politeness are related to Goffman's (1967) concepts of 'avoidance/presentational rituals'; that is, acts through which a speaker shows distance and involvement in the interaction. Scollon and Scollon (1981, 1983, 1995) suggest that negative and positive politeness address different kinds of things and that they should, therefore, not be placed on the same hierarchy. They also claim that positive politeness is geared towards addressing the general relationship between participants, while negative politeness is directed to the specific act of imposition (1981, p. 174). 5. See Lachenicht (1980) and Austin (1990) for alternative impoliteness models based on Brown and Levinson's (1978, 1987) framework and Culpeper eta/. (2003) for a critique of these. 6. See Tracy and Tracy (1998) for a reconceptualization of face and face attack in the context of 911 calls, and for a critique of the equation between face attack and lack of politeness. 7. See also Mullany (2002) for an application of the model to the analysis of political broadcast interviews in English, and Mills (2003) for a study of impoliteness and gender identity in communities of practice. Regarding communities of practice, the reader is referred to Holmes and Stubbe's (2003) examination of power and politeness in the work place. It should be noted, however, that Holmes and Stubbe do not employ Culpeper's (1996) impo­ liteness model. 8. According to Irvine (1995, p. 1) 'Linguistic honorifics are forms of speech that signal social deference, through conventionalised understandings of some aspect(s) of the form-meaning relationship'. 9. See also Kasher (1986) and Kingwell (1993) for criticisms to Brown and Levinson's rationality. 10. It should be noted that Marquez Reiter (2000), like many other authors (Blum-Kulka et at., 1989), does not equate the expression of indirectness with the expression of politeness. 11. Other scholars such as de Kadt (1998), Nwoye (1989) and Strecker (1993) have raised similar criticisms with respect to the inapplicability of the notion to Zulu, Igbo and Hamar cultures, respectively. 12. It will be recalled that Scollon and Scollon reinterpreted negative politeness as deference. Notes 239

13. Watts (1989) denies the role of 'face' in the enactment of politeness. For Watts, politeness is located within the wider context of politic behaviour. 14. See Craig et al. (1986) for an earlier criticism of Brown and Levinson's lack of focus on the speaker and for the need to account for self-presentation and self-defence when analysing face-work. 15. Also no quita Ia cortes a/para Ia valiente, amongst other variants. Politeness does not have to be a sign of weakness, or, you do not lose anything by being polite (Oxford Spanish Dictionary). 16. See also Escandell Vidal's (1996) chapter on politeness written in Spanish, Calsamiglia Blancafort and Tus6n (1999) and Bravo and Briz (2004) on the same subject. As for other books on politeness in Spanish, up to now there has only been one monograph written in English examining one variety of Spanish v. a variety of English, namely Marquez Reiter (2000). 17. For an application of Haverkate's (1984) (de)focalizing strategies, see Koike's (1989) research into Brazilian Portuguese requests and Hardin's (2001) study of TV adverts in Chilean, Peninsular and US Spanish. 18. Puga Larrain (1997) argues that the negative particle in Chilean Spanish does have a mitigating effect. 19. See also Escandell Vidal (1996) for an examination of politeness from a rele­ vance theoretic perspective and Chen (2001) for a critique of the proposed view. 20. See del Saz Rubio (2000/2001) for an application of Carrasco Santana's (1999) mitigating politeness to the study of US TV commercials. 21. Following Crespo (1986), Pant (1989) argues that, besides intra- and inter­ personal face, there are other types of self-images that call for communica­ tive face-work. One of these is 'self-esteem'. 22. It should be noted that Le Pair did not ask the informants to write their responses but to utter them and proceeded to record them. 23. Also, see Koike (1998) for an examination of the realization of suggestions in Spanish by two teaching supervisors, one American (L2) and one Mexican (Ll), within feedback sessions to teaching assistants. Suggestions are exam­ ined as inherently face-threatening acts and a description is given of the options available to conversationalists in the production of these utterances to minimize (or not) the threat. Of particular interest is the fact that the hearer's reaction is taken into account in the classification of particular utter­ ances as suggestions or related acts; that is, recommendations, advice, indi­ rect commands. 24. See Chapter 2, section 2.4 and Marquez Reiter (2000, pp. 83-94) for a detailed explanation of the coding scheme employed. 25. See also Achugar (2001, 2002) for an examination of piropos in Uruguayan Spanish as well as in other varieties of Spanish employing data from antholo­ gies, interviews and questionnaires. 26. Cf. Felix-Brasdefer (2003a), where a group of Latin American speakers (from Bolivia, Honduras and Mexico) residing in the US participated in role-play simulations. 27. See also Villemoes (1995) for a study of face work priorities in Danish and Spanish business negotiation. Unlike Bravo (1996), Villemoes (1995) analysis is based on Brown and Levinson's positive and negative face. Villemoes's results are in line with those found for Peninsular Spanish. In a later study, however, Villemoes (2003) explores the experiences of northern 240 Notes

Spaniards and Spanish-speaking business people in negotiations with south­ ern Spaniards utilizing aspects of Bravo's (1996, 1999) socio-cultural perspective. 28. See also Schrader-Kniffki (2001, 2003) for an examination of the strategies employed by Zapotecs and Mexicans in a conflicting interaction. Interest­ ingly, Schrader-Kniffki (2001) points out that the main difference in the way in which the Zapotecs express affiliation and autonomy from the Mexicans is that the former are concerned with their 'obligations' within the group whereas the Mexicans appear to be more concerned with their 'rights'.

5 Examining Sociopragmatic Variation

1. It should be noted, however, that cultures and, therefore, cultural norms are not generally homogeneous in as much as they are affected by gender, ethnic, ideological, and other differences. Hence, it is of crucial importance to the researcher to make sure that s/he is examining the pragmatic behav­ iour of a given social group beyond the commonality of a shared language. 2. Escandell Vidal (2004, p. 349) distinguishes between conventional and cus­ tomary norms. She explains that 'when norms are conventions, the indi­ vidual usually perceives them as something external, socially imposed'. An example of conventional norms would be turn allocation in given situational contexts, such as chaired discussions, panel/job interviews and the like. On the other hand, customary norms 'represent internalised, unconscious pat­ terns that the individual follows without even noticing that he is comply­ ing with an unwritten model'. 3. In relation to direct and indirect speech acts, Wierzbicka (1991) argues that differences in indirect speech realizations across languages are not due to dif­ ferent conventionalized idiomatic expressions (Searle, 1975) but to differ­ ences in cultural norms. 4. In a study of corner shop interactions where participants know each other, Placencia (2004) finds that the request for a product can occur even after a larger number of turns; this is explained in terms of the phatic talk that pre­ cedes the transaction in many of the interactions examined. 5. Note that Puga Larrain makes a similar claim for Chilean Spanish and that Hardin claims it has no mitigating effect in Chilean Spanish (adverts). Marquez Reiter (2000, 2002) sees the inclusion of the particle as formulaic and dialectal in Montevidean Spanish.

6 Research Methods in Sociopragmatics

1. See Lynch (2002), Speer (2002) and ten Have (2002) for a recent debate on natural v. contrived data in discursive psychology and conversation analy­ sis. 2. Ethnographic research has its roots in cultural anthropology. The central aim of ethnography is to understand the practices and beliefs of cultures and communities from an ernie (insider) and/or etic (outsider) perspective. When referring to ethnographic work in (socio)linguistics, the 'ethnography of speaking' (Hymes, 1962) springs to mind. It was proposed by Hymes (1962) Notes 241

in order to account for social linguistic knowledge, which had been over­ looked by traditional linguistic analyses (for example, generative grammar, speech act theory, and so on). It was also proposed by cultural anthropolo­ gists, whose main concern was the understanding of particular cultural phenomena in their sociocultural contexts with the aim of discovering sociocultural laws. The ethnography of speaking has its focus on the way in which speaking is conceptualized in a specific (speech) community; that is, 'what symbols and meaning, premises and rules there are, pertaining to com­ municative conduct' Philipsen (1998, p. 284). Hence, the task of the ethno­ grapher of speaking is to explain observed patterns of speaking according to the speech community's codes (for example, speech acts, speech events and situations). 3. See Spradley (1980, pp. 58-62) for the different degrees of involvement in participant observation. 4. Exceptions to this can be found in recordings carried out in close circuit TV laboratories. 5. See Wolfson (1976) for an opposing view with regard to the informants' unawareness of being recorded in the context of the (sociolinguistic) interview. 6. It should be noted that role plays where the conversational outcomes have not been prescribed have not yet been compared to other research instruments. 7. See Silverman (1993) for a critique of triangulation as a positivistic notion in that a single unit of analysis in the interpretative/constructionist para­ digm may not always be measured more than once and even if it could be, the fact that it is measured by means of more than one method does not necessarily ensure consistency or replicability. 8. See Cameron et al. (1997) for an enlightening discussion on ethics, advocacy and empowerment for both the researcher and the researched. References

Achugar, M. (2001) 'Piropos as metaphors for gender roles in Spanish speaking cultures', Pragmatics, 11, 127-37. Achugar, M. (2002) 'Piropos: Cambios en Ia valoraci6n del grado de cortesia de una practica discursiva', in M.E. Placencia and D. Bravo (eds), Aetas de habla y cortesia en espaflol (Munich: Lincom), 175-92. Alba de Diego, V. (1995) 'La cortesia en Ia petici6n de permiso', DICENDA Cuader­ nos de Filologia Hisp(mica, 13, 13-24. Alba-Juez, L. (2000) 'Some discourse strategies used to convey praise and/or pos­ itive feelings in Spanish everyday conversation', in H. Campos, E. Herburger, A. Morales-Front and T.l. Walsh (eds), Hispanic Linguistics at the Turn of the Millennium. Papers from the 3rd Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press) 364-80. Allwood, J. (1995) An Activity Based Approach to Pragmatics, Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 76 (Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg). Alston, W.P. (1991) 'Searle on illocutionary acts', in E. Lepore and R. Van Gulik (eds), John Searle and His Critics (Oxford: Blackwell) 57-80. Alvarez-Caccamo, C. and Knoblauch, H. (1992) '"I was calling you": Communica­ tive patterns in leaving a message on an answering machine', Text, 12, 473-505. Antonopoulou, E. and Sifianou, M. (2003) 'Conversational dynamics of humour: the telephone game in Greek', Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 741-69. Apte, M.L. (1998) 'Language in sociocultural context', in J. Mey (ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics (Oxford: Elsevier) 456-68. Arellano, S. (2000) 'A hierarchy of requests in California Spanish: are indirect­ ness and mitigation polite?', in A. Roca (ed.) Research on Spanish in the United States. Linguistic Issues and Challenges (Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press) 319-32. Arndt, H. and Janney, R. (1985) 'Politeness revisited: cross-modal supportive strategies', International Review of Applied Linguistics, 23, 281-300. Arndt, H. and Janney, R. (1991) 'Verbal, prosodic, and kinesic emotive contrasts in speech', Journal of Pragmatics, 15, 521-49. Aronson, K. and Rundstrom, B. (1989) 'Cats, dogs, and sweets in the clinical negotiation of reality: on politeness and coherence in pedriatric discourse', Language in Society, 18, 483-504. Arundale, R. (1999) 'An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory', Pragmatics, 9, 119-53. Aston, G. (1995) 'Say "thank you": some pragmatic constraints in conversational closings', Applied Linguistics, 16.1, 57-86. Atkinson, J.M. (1984) 'Public speaking and audience responses: some techniques for inviting applause', in ].M. Atkinson and ]. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer­ sity Press) 370-409. Atkinson, J.M. (1985) 'Refusing invited applause: preliminary observations from a case study of charismatic oratory', in T. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Discourse and Dialogue, vol. 3 (London: Academic Press) 161-81.

242 Re(erences 243

Atkinson, ].M. (1992) 'Displaying neutrality: formal aspects of informal court proceedings', in P. Drew and]. Heritage (eds), Talk at Work: Interaction in Insti­ tutional Settings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 199-211. Atkinson, ] .M. and Drew, P. (1979) Order in Court: The Organisation o( Verbal Inter­ action in Judicial Settings (London: Macmillan). Atkinson, ].M. and Heritage,]. (eds) (1984a) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Atkinson, ].M. and Heritage, ]. (1984b) 'Transcript notation', in J.M. Atkinson and]. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) ix-xvi. Auer, P. (1995) 'The pragmatics of code-switching: a sequential approach', in L. Milroy and P. Muysken (eds), One Speaker, Two Languages: Cross-Disciplinary Per­ spectives on Code-Switching (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 115-35. Austin, J,L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Austin, P. (1990) 'Politeness revisited: the dark side', in A. Bell and]. Holmes (eds), New Zealand Ways of Speaking English (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters) 276-95. Avila Munoz, A.M. (1998) 'Aproximaci6n a Ia estructura de las secuencias de aper­ tura y cierre en las conversaciones telef6nicas en espanol', ELUA, 12, 45-68. Bach, K. and Harnish, R.M. (1979) Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Baker, C., Emmison, M. and Firth, A. (2001) 'Discovering order in opening sequences: calls to a software helpline', in A. McHoul and M. Rapley, How to Analyse Talk in Institutional Settings: A Casebook of Methods (London: Con­ tinuum) 41-56. Ballesteros Martin, F. (2001) 'La cortesia espanola frente a Ia cortesia inglesa. Estudio pragmalingi.iistico de las exhortaciones impositivas', Estudios Ingleses de Ia Universidad Complutense, 9, 171-207. Ballesteros Martin, F. (2002) 'Mecanismos de atenuaci6n en espanol e ingles. Implicaciones pragmaticas en Ia cortesia', C{rculo de Lingiiis{tica Aplicada a Ia Comunicaci6n, 11, 2-21, www.ucm.es/info/circulo/no11/ballasteros.htm (accessed 20 May, 2004). Ban6n Hernandez, A.M. (1996) 'La interrupci6n en Ia interacci6n oral entre his­ panohablantes', in P. Diez de Revenga and ].M. Jimenez Carro (eds), Estudios de sociolingiiftica. Sincronia y diacron{a (Murcia: DM) 25-47. Ban6n Hernandez, A.M. (1997) La interrupci6n conversacional. Propuestas para su anti/isis pragmalingiiistico. Anejo XII de Analecta Malacitana (Malaga: Universi­ dad de Malaga). Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Hartford, B. (1993) 'Refining the DCT: comparing open questionnaires and dialogue completion tasks', in L. Bouton and Y. Kachru (eds), Pragmatics and Language Learning, vo!. 4 (Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language) 143-65. Bar-Hillel, Y. (1971) 'Out of the pragmatic waste-basket', Linguistic Inquiry, 2, 401-7. Bateson, G. (1972) Steps to an Ecology o( Mind (New York: Ballantine). Baxter, L. (1984) 'An investigation of compliance gaining as politeness', Human Communication Research, 10, 427-56. Bayraktaroglu, A. (1991) 'Politeness and interactional imbalance', International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 92, 5-34. 244 References

Beebe, L. and Cummings, M. (1996) 'Natural speech act data versus written ques­ tionnaire data: how data collection method affects speech act performance', in S. Gass and N. joyce (eds), Speech Act Across Cultures: Challenges to Commu­ nication in a Second Language (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter) 65-86. Beinhauer, W. (1991 [1964]) El espana/ coloquial (Madrid: Gredos). Bengoechea Bartolome, M. (1993) 'La interrupci6n entre jefas y subordinadas/os', Aetas de las Primeras Jornadas lnternacionales de Lingiifstica Aplicada (Granada: Universidad de Granada) 15-20. Benson, D. and Hughes, ].A. (1983) The Perspective of Ethnomethodology (London: Longman). Berlin, I. (1973) 'Austin and the early beginnings of Oxford Philosophy', in I. Berlin, D.F. Pears, J.R. Searle, L.W. Forguson, G. Pitcher, P.F. Strawson and G.]. Warnock, Essays on J.L. Austin (Oxford: Clarendon Press) 1-16. Biletzki, A. (1996) 'Is there a history of pragmatics?' Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 455-70. Billig, M. (1999) 'Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoric and ideology in conversation analysis', Discourse and Society, 10, 543-58. Billmyer, K. and Varghese, M. (2000) 'Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: effects of enhancing discourse completion tests', Applied Linguistics, 21.4, 517-52. Bilmes,]. (1988) 'The concept of preference in conversation analysis', Language in Society, 17, 161-81. Bias Arroyo, J.L. (2001) '"No digas chorradas ... " La descortesia en el debate politico cara a cara. Una aproximaci6n pragmavariacionista', Oralia, 4, 9-45. Blum-Kulka, S. (1982) 'Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: A study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language', Applied Linguistics, 3, 29-59. Blum-Kulka, S. (1987) 'Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or differ­ ent?', Journal of Pragmatics, ll, 131-46. Blum-Kulka, S. (1989) 'Playing it safe: the role of conventionality in indirectness', in S. Blum-Kulka, ]. House and G. Kasper (eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (Norwood, NJ: Ablex) 37-70. Blum-Kulka, S. (1990) 'You don't touch lettuce with your fingers: parental polite­ ness in family discourse', Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 259-88. Blum-Kulka, S. (1992) 'The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society', in R. Watts, R. Ide and S. Ehlich (eds), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 59 (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter) 255-81. Blum-Kulka, S. (1997) 'Discourse pragmatics', in T.A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction (London: Sage) 38-63. Blum-Kulka, S. and House, J. (1989) 'Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behavior', in S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper (eds), Cross­ Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (Norwood, NJ: Ablex) 123-54. Blum-Kulka, S. and Olshtain, E. (1984) 'Request and apologies: a cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP)', Applied Linguistics, 5, 196-213. Blum-Kulka, S. and Sheffer, H. (1993) The metapragmatics of American-Israeli families at dinner', in G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (eds), Interlanguage Prag­ matics (New York: Oxford University Press) 196-223. References 245

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G. (eds) (1989) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (Norwood, NJ: Ablex). Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D.H. (eds) (1991) Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (Cambridge: Polity Press). Bodman, J. and Eisenstein, M. (1988) 'May God increase your bounty: the expres­ sion of gratitude in English by native and non-native speakers', Cross Currents, 15.1, 1-21. Bolivar, A. (2001) 'El insulto como estrategia en el dialogo politico venezolano', Oralia, 4, 47-73. Bolivar, A. (2002) 'Los reclamos como aetas de habla en el espafiol de Venezuela', in M.E. Placencia and D. Bravo (eds), Aetas de habla y cortesia en espafiol (Munich: Lincom) 37-53. Bolivar, A. (2003) 'La descortesia como estrategia politica en la democracia vene­ zolana', in D. Bravo (ed.), Aetas del Primero Coloquio del Programa EDICE. La per­ spectiva no entocentrista de Ia cortesia: identidad sociocultural de las comunidades hispanohablantes. www.primercoloquio.edice.org/Actas/actas.htm (Stockholm: University of Stockholm) 213-26 (accessed July 2003). Boretti, S. (1999) 'A prop6sito de l_me entendes? en el espafiol de la Argentina', Oralia, 2, 139-54. Boretti, S. (2001) 'Aspectos de la cortesia lingiiistica en el espaiiol coloquial de Ia Argentina', Oralia, 4, 75-102. Boretti, S. (2003) 'Cortesia, imagen social y contextos socioculturales en la variedad de espafiol de Rosario, Argentina', in D. Bravo (ed.), Aetas del Primero Coloquio del Programa EDICE. La perspectiva no entocentrista de Ia cortesia: Identidad sociocultural de las comunidades hispanohablantes. www.primercoloquio. edice.org/Actas/actas.htm (Stockholm: University of Stockholm) 110-20 (accessed July 2003). Bou Franch, P. and Gregori Signes, C. (1999) 'Pragmatica intercultural: emisiones del oyente en ingles britanico y espafiol peninsular', Quaderns de Filologia Estudis Lingiiistics, 4, 123-34. Boyle, R. (2000) 'Whatever happened to preference organisation?', Journal ofPrag­ matics, 32, 583-604. Bravo, D. (1993) 'La atenuaci6n de las divergencias mediante Ia risa en nego­ ciaciones espafiolas y suecas', Unpublished manuscript. Bravo, D. (1996) La risa en el regateo: Estudio sabre el estilo comunicativo de nego­ ciadores espafioles y suecos (Stockholm Akademi Tryck AB: University of Stockholm). Bravo, D. (1998a) 'l_Reirse juntos? Un estudio de las imagenes sociales de hablantes espafioles mexicanos y suecos', in H. Haverkate, K. Hengeveld and G. Mulder (eds), La pragmdtica lingiiistica del espana/. Recientes desarrollos, Dialogos Hispanicos 22 (Amsterdam: Rodopi) 315-64. Bravo, D. (1998b) 'Facey Rol Social: Eficiencia comunicativa en encuentro entre hablantes nativos y no nativos de espafiol', Revista de Estudios de Adquisici6n de Ia Lengua Espanola, 9-10, 11-41. Bravo, D. (1999) 'Llmagen "positiva" vs Imagen "negativa"?: Pragmatica socio­ cultural y componentes de face', Oralia, 2, 155-84. Bravo, D. (2000) 'Aspectos contrastivos en conversaci6n: la comunicaci6n no verbal', Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm Studies in Modem Philology New Series 12: Contrasts in Languages (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell Inter­ national) 71-86. 246 References

Bravo, D. (2002) 'Actos asertivos y cortesia, imagen del rol en el discurso de academicos argentinas', in M.E. Placencia and D. Bravo (eds), Aetas de habla y cortesia en espaiiol (Munich: Lincom) 141-74. Bravo, D. (2003) 'Actividades de cortesia, imagen social y contextos sociocultur­ ales: una introducci6n', in D. Bravo (ed.), Aetas del Primero Coloquio del Programa EDICE. La perspectiva no entocentrista de Ia cortesia: identidad sociocul­ tural de las comunidades hispanohablantes, www.primercoloquio.edice.org/Aetas/ actas.htm (Stockholm: University of Stockholm) 98-108 (accessed July 2003). Bravo, D. and Briz, A. (eds) (2004) Pragrnatica sociocultural: Estudios sabre el dis­ curso de cortesia en espaiiol (Barcelona: Ariel). Briz, A. (1995) 'La atenuaci6n en la conversaci6n coloquial. Una categoria pragmatica', in L. Cortes (ed.), El espaiiol coloquial. Aetas del I Simposio sabre ana/isis del discurso oral (Almeria: University of Almeria) 103-22. Briz, A. (1998) El espaiiol coloquial en Ia conversaci6n. Esbozo de pragrnagramatica (Barcelona: Ariel). Briz, A. (2003) 'La estrategia atenuadora en la conversaci6n cotidiana espanola', in D. Bravo (ed.), Aetas del Primero Coloquio del Programa EDICE. La perspectiva no entocentrista de Ia cortesia: Identidad sociocultural de las comunidades his­ panohablantes. www.primercoloquio.edice.org/ Aetas/ actas.htm (Stockholm: University of Stockholm) 17-46 (accessed July 2003). Brown, P. (1976) 'Women and politeness: a new perspective on language and society. Review of "Language and woman's place" by R. Lakoff', Reviews in Anthropology, 3, 240-49. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1978) 'Universals in language usage: politeness phe­ nomena', in E. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interac­ tion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 56-310. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1972 [1960]) 'The pronouns of power and solidarity', in P. Gigliogli (ed.), Language and Social Context (Harmondsworth: Penguin) 252-82. Buckwalter, P. (2001) 'Repair sequences in Spanish L2 dyadic discourse: A descrip­ tive study', Modern Language Journal, 85, 380-97. Bustamante-L6pez, I. and Nino Murcia, M. (1995) 'lmpositive speech acts in northern Andean Spanish: A pragmatic description', Hispania, 78, 885-97. Button, G. (1987) 'Moving out of closings', in G. Button andJ.R.E. Lee (eds), Talk and Social Organization (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters) 101-51. Button, G. (1988/1989) 'A short review of research on language and social inter­ action in the United Kingdom', Research on Language and Social Interaction, 22, 327-46. Button, G. (1990) 'On varieties of closings', in G. Psathas (ed.), Interaction Com­ petence (Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America) 93-147. Button, G. (1991) 'Conversation-in-a-Series', in D. Boden and D.H. Zimmerman (eds), Talk and Social Structure. Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (Cambridge: Polity Press) 251-77. Button, G. and Casey, N. (1984) 'Generating topic: the use of topic initial elici­ tors', in ].M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 167-90. References 24 7

Button, G. and Casey, N. (1985) 'Topic nominalization and topic pursuit', Human Studies, 8, 3-55. Button, G. and Lee, J.R.E. (eds) (1987) 'Preface', in G. Button and J.R.E. Lee (eds), Talk and Social Organization (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters) 1-8. Calsamiglia Blancafort, H. and Tus6n Valls, A. (1999) Las casas del decir (Barcelona: Ariel Lingiiistica). Cameron, D. (1997) 'Performing gender: young men's talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity', in S. Johnson and U. Meinhoff (eds), Language and Masculinity (Oxford: Blackwell) 47-64. Cameron, D. (2001) Working with Spoken Discourse (London: Sage). Cameron, D., Frazer, E., Harvey, P., Rampton, B. and Richardson, K. (1997) 'Ethics, advocacy and empowerment in researching language', inN. Coupland and A. Jaworski (eds), Sociolinguistics: A Reader and Coursebook (London: Macmillan) 145-62. Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980) 'Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing', Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-470. Carb6, T. (1992) 'Towards an interpretation of interruptions in Mexican parlia­ mentary discourse (1920-1960)', Discourse and Society, 3, 25-45. Carrasco Santana, A. (1998) 'Tendencias relacionales de los espanoles en las interacciones verbales, I: La distancia social en Ia conversaci6n', Cuadernos del Lazarillo, 15, 55-61. Carrasco Santana, A. (1999) 'Revision y evaluaci6n del modelo de cortesia de Brown y Levinson', Pragmalingiiistica, 7, 1-44. Cestero Mancera, A.M. (1994a) 'Intercambio de turnos de habla en Ia conver­ saci6n en lengua espanola', Revista Espanola de Lingiiistica, 24, 77-99. Cestero Mancera, A.M. (1994b) 'Alternancia de turnos de habla en lengua espanola: La influencia del sexo y Ia ectad de los interlocutores', Pragmal­ ingUistica, 2, 123-49. Cestero Mancera, A.M. (1996) 'Funciones de Ia risa en Ia conversaci6n en lengua espanola', Lingiifstica Espanola Actual, 18, 2, 279-98. Cestero Mancera, A.M. (1999) 'La interrupci6n en Ia conversaci6n en lengua espanola', in]. Fernandez Gonzalez, C. Fernandez Juncal, M. Marcos Sanchez, E. Prieto de los Mozos, and L. Santos Rio (eds), Lingiifstica para el Siglo XXI, Vol. I (Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca) 428-34. Cestero Mancera, A.M. (2000) 'La funci6n fatica dellenguaje en el discurso y Ia conversaci6n', in M.A. Dolores Munoz Nunez, A.I. Rodriguez-Pineiro Alcala, G. Fernandez Smith and V. Benitez Soto (eds), Aetas del IV Congreso de Lingiifstica General, 3-6 de abril, Cadiz (Cadiz: Universidad de Cadiz; Universidad de Alcala) 617-29. Cheepen, C. (2000) 'Small talk in service-dialogues: the conversational aspects of transactional telephone talk', in ]. Coupland (ed.), Small Talk (London: Longman) 288-311. Chen, R. (2001) 'Self-politeness: a proposal', Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 87-106. Cheng, W. and Warren, M. (2003) 'Indirectness, inexplicitness and vagueness made clearer', Pragmatics, 13.3, 381-400. Chodorowska-Pilch, M. (1997) 'On the polite function of Lme entiendes? in Spanish', Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 355-71. Chodorowska-Pilch, M. (2002) 'Las ofertas y Ia cortesia en espanol peninsular', 248 References

in M.E. Placencia and D. Bravo (eds), Actos de habla y cortesfa en espanol (Munich: Lincom) 21-36. Chodorowska-Pilch, M. (2004) 'Conditional: a grammaticalised marker of polite- ness in Spanish' (Amsterdam: john Benjamins) 57-75. Chomsky, N. (195 7) Syntactic Structures (The Hague: Mouton). Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Ciapuscio, G. and Kesselheim, W. (1997) '"Usted, lque es?": categorizaciones y contexto institucional', in K. Zimmerman and C. Bierbach (eds), Lenguaje y Comunicaci6n Intercultural en el Mundo Hispanico (Frankfurt: Vervuert) 105-30. Cicourel, A. (1987) 'On John R. Searle's Intentionality', Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 641-60. Clancy, P. (1986) 'The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese', in B. Schieffelin and E. Ochs (eds), Language Socialization Across Cultures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 213-49. Clark, H. (1979) 'Responding to indirect speech acts', Cognitive Psychology, 11, 430-77. Clark, H. (1996) Using Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Clark, H. and French, ].W. (1981) 'Telephone goodbyes', Language in Society, 10, 1-19. Clark, H. and Schunk, D. (1980) 'Polite responses to polite requests', Cognition, 8, 111-43. Clayman, S.E. (1992) 'Caveat orator: audience disaffiliation in the 1988 presi­ dential debates', Quarterly Journal of Speech, 78, 33-60. Clayman, S.E. and Maynard, D.W. (1995) 'Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis', in P. ten Have and G. Psathas (eds), Situated Order: Studies in the Social Organization of Talk and Embodied Activities (Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis; University Press of America) 1-30. Clyne, M. (1994) Inter-Cultural Communication at Work: Cultural Values in Dis­ course (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Clyne, M. (1998) 'Discourse in cross-linguistic and cross-cultural contexts', in]. Mey (ed.) Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics (Amsterdam: Elsevier) 244-51. Coates, ]. (1996) Women Talk: Conversation between Women Friends (Oxford: Oxford: Blackwell). Cohen, A. (1996) 'Developing the ability to perform speech acts', Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 253-67. Cohen, A. and Oshtain, E. (1981) 'Developing a measure of sociocultural com­ petence: the case of apology', Language Learning, 31, 113-34. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (eds) (2000) Research Methods in Educa­ tion, 5th edn (London: Routledge/Falmer). Cordelia, M. (1990) 'Apologizing in Chilean Spanish and Australian English: a cross-cultural perspective', Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 7, 66-92. Cordelia, M. and Forbes, K. (1998) 'Discourse control and leadership in Spanish conflict talk', Onomazein, 3, 45-61. Cordelia, M., Large, H. and Pardo, V. (1995) 'Complimenting behavior in Aus­ tralian English and Spanish speech', Multilingua, 14, 235-52. Cordisco, A. (2003) 'Afiliaci6n y desafiliaci6n: contexto sociocultural en el anali­ sis de Ia interrupci6n', in D. Bravo (ed.), Aetas del Primer Coloquio del Programa ED ICE. La perspectiva no entocentrista de /a cortesfa: Identidad sociocultural de las References 249

comunidades hispanohab/antes. www.primercoloquio.edice.org/Actas/actas.htm (Stockholm: University of Stockholm) 149-63 (accessed July 2003). Cortes Rodriguez, L. (2002) Los estudios del espaiiol hablado entre 1950 y 1999, Anejo de Oralia (Madrid: Arco/Libros). Cortes Rodriguez, L. and Camacho Adarve, M.M. (2003) (.Que es el ami/isis del dis- cursu? (Barcelona: Octaedro-EUB). Coulmas, F. (ed) (1997) The Handbook of Sociolinguistics (Oxford: Blackwell). Coupland, J. (ed.) (2000) Small Talk (London: Pearson). Coupland, N. and Jaworski, A. (1997) 'Introduction', in N. Coupland and A. Jaworski (eds), Sociolinguistics. A Reader and Coursebook (Basingstoke: Macmil­ lan; New York: StMartin's Press) 1-3. Coupland, N. and Jaworski, A. (eds) (1997) Sociolinguistics: A Reader and Course­ book (London: Macmillan). Craig, R., Tracy, K. and Spisak, F. (1986) 'The discourse of requests. assessment of a politeness approach', Human Communication Research, 12, 437-68. Crespo, E. (1986) 'A regional variation: emotions in Spain', in R. Harre (ed.), The Social Construction of Emotions (London: Blackwell) 209-17. Cuff, E.C. and Sharrock, W.W. (1985) 'Meetings', in T.A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis 3: Discourse and Dialogue (London: Academic Press) 149-59. Culpeper, J. (1996) 'Towards an anatomy of impoliteness', Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349-67. Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D. and Wichmann, A. (2003) 'Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects', Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1545-579. Curc6, C. (1998) ' 11 No me harias un favorcito?": Reflexiones en torno ala expre­ si6n de la cortesia verbal en el espafiol de Mexico y el espafiol peninsular', in H. Haver kate, G. Mulder and C. Fraile (eds), La pragmatica lingiiistica del espaiiol. Recientes desarrol/os, Dialogos Hispanicos 22 (Amsterdam: Rodopi) 129-71. Curc6, C. and de Fina, A. (2002) 'Modo imperativo, negaci6n y diminutivos en la expresi6n de la cortesia en espafiol: el contraste entre Mexico y Espana', in M.E. Placencia and D. Bravo (eds), Actos de habla y cortesia en Espana/ (Munich: Lincom) 107-40. Czyzewski, M. (1989) 'Garfinkel, //cognitive revolution", and conversation analy­ sis', International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 78, 43-55. Dascal, M. (1983) Pragmatics and the Philosophy of Mind. Vol. I. Thought in Lan­ guage (Amsterdam: John Benjamins). de Erlich, F. (2003) 'El discurso politico venezolano actual: (Atenuaci6n o refuerzo del conflicto?', in D. Bravo (ed.), Aetas del Primer Coloquio del Programa ED ICE. La perspectiva no entocentrista de Ia cortesia: Identidad sociocultural de las comunidades hispanohablantes. www.primercoloquio.edice.org/Actas/actas.htm (Stockholm: University of Stockholm) 227-239 (accessed July 2003). de Kadt, E. (1998) 'The concept of face and its applicability to the Zulu language', Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 173-91. de los Heros, S. (2001) Discurso, identidad y genera en el caste/lana peruano (Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat6lica del Peru/ Fondo Editorial). de Saussure, F. (1959 [1916]) Cours de Linguistique Generale [Course in General Linguistics] (trans. from the French by W. Baskin) (New York: Philosophical Library). 250 References del Saz Rubio, M. (2000/2001) 'The intricacies of the persuasive seller: the power of mitigation', Pragmalingiiistica, 8-9, 279-96. Diaz Perez, F.]. (1999) 'Requesting in British English and Peninsular Spanish: a comparative analysis of politeness strategies', in G. Alvarez Benito et al. (eds), Lenguas en contacto (Seville: Mergablum) 171-80. Dillon, G.L., Coleman, L., Fahnestock, j., Agar, M. (1985) 'Review article', Language, 61, 446-60. Drew, P. (1984) 'Speakers' reportings in invitation sequences', in J.M. Atkinson and j. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 129-51. Drew, P. and Heritage, j. (1992) 'Analyzing talk at work: an introduction', in P. Drew and ]. Heritage (eds), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 3-65. Drew, P. and Heritage, ]. (eds.) (1992) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Duncan, S. (1972) 'Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conver­ sation', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 283-92. Duncan, S. (1974) 'On the structure of speaker-auditor interaction during speak­ ing turns', Language in Society, 2, 161-80. Duncan, S. and Fiske, D.W. (1977) Face-to-Face Interaction: Research, Methods and Theory (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). Duncan, S. and Fiske, D.W. (1985) Interaction Structure and Strategy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Duranti, A. (1997) Linguistic Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Edelsky, C. (1993 [1981]) 'Who's got the floor?', in D. Tannen (ed.), Gender and Conversational Interaction (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 189-227. Edmondson, W. (1981) Spoken Discourse (London: Longman). Edmonson, W., House, j., Kasper, G. and Stemmer, B. (1984) 'Learning the prag­ matics of discourse: A project report', Applied Linguistics, 5, 113-27. Edwards, J.A. and Lampert, M.D. (eds) (1993) Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum). Eelen, G. (2001) A Critique of Politeness Theories (Manchester: St jerome). Eerdmans, S.L. (2003) 'A bibliography of Emanuel A. Schegloff', in C. Prevignano and P.j. Thibault (eds), Discussing Conversation Analysis. The Work of Emanuel A. Schegloff (Amsterdam: john Benjamins) 173-81. Ericsson, K.A. and Simon, H.A. (1984) Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data, 1st edn (Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT Press). Escandell Vidal, V. (1996a) Introducci6n a Ia Pragmatica (Barcelona: Ariel). Escandell Vidal, V. (1996b) 'Towards a cognitive approach to politeness', in K. jaszczolt and K. Turner (eds), Contrastive Semantics and Pragmatics II. Discourse Strategies (Oxford: Pergamon) 629-50. Escandell Vidal, V. (1998) 'Politeness: a relevant issue for relevance theory', Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 11, 45-57. Escandell Vidal, V. (2004) 'Norms and principles: putting social and cognitive pragmatics together', in R. Marquez Reiter and M.E. Placencia (eds), Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish (Amsterdam: John Benjamins) 347-71. Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power (London: Longman). Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis (London: Longman). References 25 1

Fan, S.K.C. (1994) 'Contact situation and language management', Multilingua, 13.3, 237-52. Fant, L. (1989) 'Cultural mismatch in conversation: Spanish and Scandinavian communicative behaviour in negotiation settings', Hermes Journal of Linguis­ tics, 3, 247-65. Fant, L. (1992a) 'Analyzing negotiation talk- authentic data vs. role play', in A. Grindsted and]. Wagner (eds), Communication for Specific Purposes (Ttibingen: Gunter Narr Verlag) 164-75. Fant, L. (1992b) 'Scandinavians and Spaniards in negotiation', in LA. Sjogren and L. Janson (eds), Culture and Management in the Field of Ethnology and Business Administration (Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics; Swedish Immi­ gration Institute and Museum) 125-53. Fant, L. (1995) 'Negotiation discourse and interaction in a cross-cultural per­ spective: the case of Sweden and Spain', in K. Ehlich and ]. Wagner (eds), The Discourse of Business Negotiation (Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter) 177-201. Fant, L. (1996) 'Regulaci6n conversacional en Ia negociaci6n: una comparaci6n entre pautas mexicanas y peninsulares', in T. Kotschi, W. Oesterreicher and K. Zimmerman (eds) El espana! hablado y Ia cultura oral en Espana e Hispanoamerica (Vervuert-lberoamericana) 147-83. Fant, L. (2000) 'La repetici6n como recurso para Ia negociaci6n de identidades en Ia conversaci6n espontanea', in ]. Nystedt (ed.), XIV Romanistkongressen, Stockholm 10-15 augusti 1999. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis Romanica Stock­ holmiensia, 19 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International (CD-ROM)). Fant, L. (2001) 'Creating awareness of identity work in conversation: a resource for language training', in M. Kelly and L. Fant (eds) Third Level Third Space: Intercultural communication and language in higher education in Europe (Bern: Peter Lang). Fant, L. and Granato, L. (2002) 'Cortesia y gesti6n interrelacional: hacia un nuevo marco conceputal', Stockholm Studies in Interaction, Identity and Linguistic Struc­ ture II 1-6. http:/ /labl.isp.su.se/iis/Siiseng.htm (accessed in June 2003) (Stock­ holm: University of Stockholm, 2002). Fant, L. and Grindsted, A. (1995) 'Conflict and consensus in Spanish vs Scandi­ navian negotiation interaction', Hermes Journal of Linguistics, 15, 111-41. Fasold, R. (1984) The Sociolinguistics of Society (Oxford: Basil Blackwell). Felix-Brasdefer, ]. C. (2003a) 'Validity in data collection methods in pragmatics research', in P. Kempchinsky and C. Piiieros (eds), Theory, Practice, and Acquisi­ tion: Papers from the 6th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium and the 5th Conference on the Acquisition ofSpanish and Portuguese (Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press) 239-5 7. Felix-Brasdefer, ].C. (2003b) 'Declining an invitation: a cross-cultural study of pragmatic strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish', Multi­ lingua, 22, 225-255. Ferrer, M.C. (2003) 'El discurso de Ia cortesia en puestos de atenci6n al publico en Argentina', in D. Bravo (ed.), Aetas del Primero Coloquio del Programa EDICE. La perspectiva no entocentrista de Ia cortesfa: Identidad sociocultural de las comu­ nidades hispanohablantes. www.primercoloquio.edice.org/Actas.actas.htm (Stockholm: University of Stockholm) 315-31 (accessed July 2003). Ferrer, M.C. and Sanchez Lanza, C. (1998) 'Dialogo coloquial: La atenuaci6n', Oralia, 1, 213-22. 252 References

Ferrer, M.C. and Sanchez Lanza, C. (2002) Interacci6n verbal. Los aetas de habla (Rosario: UNR Editora, Universidad Nacional de Rosario). Figueroa, E. (1994) Sociolinguistic Metatheory (Oxford: Pergamon). Fillmore, C.J. (1971) 'Verbs of judging: an exercise in semantic description', in C.]. Fillmore and D.T. Langendoen (eds), Studies in Linguistic Semantics (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston) 273-90. Firth, A. (1995a) 'Ethnomethodology', in]. Verschueren,J. Ostman, and]. Blom­ maert (eds), Handbook of Pragmatics, Manual (Amsterdam: John Benjamins) 269-78. Firth, A. (ed.) (1995b) The Discourse ofNegotiation: Studies ofLanguage in the Work­ place (Oxford: Pergamon Press). Firth, A. (1995c) 'Talking for a change: commodity negotiating by telephone', in A. Firth (ed.), The Discourse of Negotiation: Studies of Language in the Workplace (Oxford: Pergamon Press) 183-222. Firth, A. (1996) 'The discursive accomplishment of normality: on "lingua franca" English and conversation analysis', Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237-59. Fitch, K. (1990/1991) 'A ritual for attempting leave-taking in Colombia', Research on Language and Social Interaction, 24, 209-24. Fitch, K. and Sanders, R. (1994) 'Culture, communication, and preferences for directness in the expression of directives', Communication Theory, 219-45. Flowerdew, ]. (1990) 'Problems of speech act theory from an applied perspective', Language Learning, 40, 79-105. Franck, D. (1980) Grammatik und Konversation (Dusseldorf). Franck, D. (1981) 'Seven sins of pragmatics: theses about speech act theory, conversational analysis, linguistics and rhetoric', in H. Parret, M. Sbisa and]. Verschueren (eds), Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics (Amsterdam: John Benjamins) 225-36. Fraser, B. (1974a) 'A partial analysis of vernacular performative verbs', in R. Shuy and C.]. Bailey (eds), Towards Tomorrow's Linguistics (Washington, DC: George­ town University Press) 139-58. Fraser, B. (1974b) ']. Searle, Speech Acts. Review', Foundations of Language, 11, 433-46. Fraser, B. (1975) 'Hedged performatives', in P. Cole and].L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (New York: Academic Press) 187-210. Fraser, B. (1978) 'Acquiring social competence in a second language', RELC Journal, 9, 1-21. Fraser, B. (1981) 'On apologizing', in F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational Routine (The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter) 259-71. Fraser, B. (1990) 'Perspectives on politeness', Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-36. Fraser, B. (1998) 'Pragmatic research: methodological issues', in J. Mey (ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics (Oxford: Elsevier) 710-12. Fraser, B. and Nolen, W. (1981) 'The association of deference with linguistic form', International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93-109. Fukushima, S. (2000) Requests and Culture: Politeness in British English and Japanese (Bern: Peter Lang). Gallardo Pauls, B. (1993a) Lingiifstica perceptiva y conversaci6n: Secuencias (Valencia: Universitat de Valencia). Gallardo Pauls, B. (1993b) 'La transici6n entre turnos conversacionales: Silencios, solapamientos e interrupciones', Contextos, XI, 21-22, 189-220. References 253

Gallardo Pauls, B. (1996) Ana/isis conversacional y pragmatica del receptor (Valen­ cia: Episteme). Garcia, C. (1989a) 'Disagreeing and requesting by Americans and Venezuelans', Linguistics and Education, 1, 299-322. Garcia, C. (1989b) 'Apologizing in English: Politeness strategies used by native and non-native speakers', Multilingua, 8, 3-20. Garcia, C. (1992) 'Refusing an invitation: a case study of Peruvian style', Hispanic Linguistics, 5, 207-43. Garcia, C. (1993) 'Making a request and responding to it: a case study of Peru­ vian Spanish speakers', Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 127-152. Garcia, C. (1996) 'Reprimanding and responding to a reprimand: a case study of Peruvian Spanish speakers', Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 663-97. Garcia, C. (1999) 'The three stages of Venezuelan invitations and responses', Multilingua, 18, 391-433. Garcia, C. (2002) 'La expresion de camaraderia y solidaridad: Como los vene­ zolanos solicitan un servicio y responden a Ia solicitud de un servicio', in M.E. Placencia and D. Bravo (eds), Aetas de habla y cortesfa en espana/ (Munich: Lincom) 55-88. Garda, C. (2004a) 'Coercion and cooperation: a case study of Argentinian repri­ mands and responses to reprimands', in R. Marquez Reiter and M.E. Placencia (eds), Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish (Amsterdam: John Benjamins) 231-64. Garcia, C. (2004b) 'Reprendiendo y respondiendo a una reprimenda. Similitudes y diferencias entre peruanos y venezolanos', Spanish in Context, 1, 113-47. Garda Gomez, A. (2000) 'Discourse, politeness and gender roles: an exploratory investigation into British and Spanish talkshow verbal conflicts', Estudios Ingle­ ses de Ia Universidad Complutenese, 8, 97-125. Garda Gomez, A. (2000/2001) 'Analysing casual talk: topic as a structuring frame', Pragmalingiifstica, 8-9, 123-42. Gardiner, A.H. (1951 [1932]) The Theory of Speech and Language (Oxford: Claren­ don Press). Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall). Garfinkel, H. and Sacks, H. (1970) 'On formal structures of practical actions', in ].C. McKinney (ed.), Theoretical Sociology (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts) 337-66. Gass, S. and Neu, ]. (eds) (1996) Speech Acts Across Cultures. Challenges to Com­ munication in a Second Language (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter). Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books). Geis, M.L. (1995) Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction: Toward a Theory of Conversational Competence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Giddens, A. (1977) Studies in Social and Political Theory (London: Hutchinson). Gille, ]. (2001) Pautas argumentativas en e/ dialogo espontaneo. Un estudio de con­ versaciones intra e intercu/turales (Stockholm: University of Stockholm). Glenn, P.]. (1995) 'Laughing at and laughing with: Negotiation of participant alignments through conversational laughter', in P. ten Have and G. Psathas (eds), Situated Order: Studies in the Social Organization of Talk and Embodied Activ­ ities (Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America) 43-56. 254 References

Glenn, P.]. (2003) Laughter in Interaction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Godard, D. (1977) 'Same setting, different norms: Phone call beginnings in France and the United States', Language in Society, 6, 209-19. Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday). Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour (New York: Doubleday Anchor Books). Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press). Golato, A. (2003) 'Studying Compliment Responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk', Applied Linguistics, 24.1, 90-121. Gonzalez Mangas, A. (2000) 'Analisis pragmatico de un dialogo seg(Jn ]. Searle', Revista de Investigaci6n Lingilistica, 1, 91-lll. Goodwin, C. (1980) 'Restarts, pauses and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn beginning', Sociological Inquiry, SO, 272-302. Goodwin, C. (1981) Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers (New York: Academic Press). Goodwin, C. (1984) 'Notes on story structure and the organization of participa­ tion', in J.M. Atkinson and]. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 225-46. Goodwin, C. (1987) 'Unilateral departure', in G. Button and].R.E. Lee (eds), Talk and Social Organization (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters) 206-16. Goodwin, C. and Duranti, A. (1992) 'Rethinking context: an introduction', in A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds), Rethinking Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 1-42. Gordon, D. and Lakoff, G. (1975 [1971]) 'Conversational postulates', in P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (New York: Acade­ mic Press) 83-106. Goutsos, D. (1997) Modeling Discourse Topic: Sequential Relations and Strategies in Expository Text. Advances in Discourse Processes, vol. 59 (Norwood, NJ: Ablex). Graddol, D., Cheshire, ]. and Swann, J. (1987) Describing Language (Milton Keynes: Open University Press). Granato, L. (2003) 'El lenguaje de los estudiantes universitarios argentinas: interacci6n e imagen social', in D. Bravo (ed.), Aetas del Primer Coloquio del Programa EDICE. La perspectiva no entocentrista de la cortesia: Identidad socio­ cultural de las comunidades hispanohablantes. www.primercoloquio.edice.org/ Actas.actas.htm (accessed in July 2003) (Stockholm: University of Stockholm) 164-71. Greatbatch, D. (1988) 'A turn-taking system for British news interviews', Lan­ guage in Society, 17, 401-30. Greatbatch, D. (1992) 'On the management of disagreement between news interviewees', in P. Drew and ]. Heritage (eds), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 268-301. Grewendorf, G. (2002) 'How performatives don't work', in G. Grewendorf and G. Meggle (eds), Speech Acts, Mind and Social Reality. Discussions with John R. Searle (Dordrecht: Kluwer) 25-39. Grice, P. (1975 [1967]) 'Logic in conversation', in P. Cole and]. Morgan (eds) Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts 3 (New York: Academic Press) 41-58. Grice, P. (1989) Studies in the way of words (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). References 255

Grindsted, A. (1995) 'Dyadic and polyadic sequencing patterns in Spanish and Danish negotiation interaction', in K. Ehlich and ]. Wagner (eds), The Discourse of Business Negotiation (Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter) 203-21. Grindsted, A. (1997) 'Joking as a strategy in Spanish and Danish negotiations', in F. Bargiela-Chiappini and S. Harris (eds), The Languages of Business: An Inter­ national Perspective (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press) 159-81. Gu, Y. (1990) 'Politeness in modern Chinese', Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237-57. Guariglia, 0. (1996) 'Ensayo de una clasificaci6n de los actos de habla en espafiol', Filologia, 29, 83-94. Gumperz,] .] . (1978) 'The conversational analysis of interethnic communication', in E. Lamar Ross (ed.), Interethnic Communication (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press). Gumperz,] .]. (1982) Discourse Strategies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Gumperz, ].]. (1992) 'Interviewing in intercultural situations', in P. Drew and]. Heritage (eds), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 302-27. Gurruchaga, M.L. (1981) 'Analisis de una secuencia conflictiva en una discusi6n radiof6nica', Anales de Ia Universidad de Murcia, 38, 2, 209-23. Haberland, H. and Mey, J.L. (1977) 'Editorial: linguistics and pragmatics', Journal of Pragmatics, 1, 1-12. Haberland, H. and Mey, ].L. (2002) 'Editorial: linguistics and pragmatics, 25 years after', Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1671-82. Habermas, ]. (1981) Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns, vols 1 and 2 (Frank­ furt: Suhrkamp). Habermas, ]. (1984) Vorstudien und Ergiinzungenzur Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp). Haggkvist, C. (2002) 'Ya hemos pasado deportes y estudios . .. 'La gesti6n tematica en el dialogo intercultural (Stockholm, University of Stockholm). Haggkvist, C. and Fant, L. (2000) 'El intercambio de opiniones en conversaciones intra e interculturales', Oralia, 3, 95-111. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994 [1985]) An Introduction to Functional Grammar (London: Edward Arnold). Hamel, R.E. (1983) Ana/isis conversacional. Un metoda de ana/isis sociolingilistico y pragmatico con algunas proposiciones de investigaci6n en Mexico (Mexico, DF: CIESAS). Hamilton, V. (1976) 'Role play and deception: re-examination of the contro­ versy', Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 6, 233-50. Hammersley, M. (2003) 'Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: Methods or paradigms?', Discourse and Society, 14, 751-81. Hardin, K.]. (2001) Pragmatics of Persuasive Discourse in Spanish Television Adver­ tising (Texas: SIL International; University of Texas at Arlington). Harnish, R.M. (1997) 'Performatives and standarization: a progress report', Sonderheft, 8, Linguistische Berichte, 161-75. Harris, S. (1989) 'Defendant resistance to power and control in court', in H. Coleman (ed.), Working with Language (Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter) 131-64. Harris, S. (2001) 'Being politically impolite: extending politeness theory to adver­ sarial political discourse', Discourse and Society, 12, 451-72. 25 6 References

Hartford, B. and Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992) 'Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics', in L. Bouton. and Y. Kachru (eds), Pragmatics and Language Learning, vol. 3 (Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language) 33-52. Haslett, B. (1987) Communication: Strategic Action in Context (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum). Hassall, T. (1999) 'Request strategies in Indonesian', Pragmatics, 9, 585-606. Haverkate, H. (1979) Impositive Sentences in Spanish: Theory and Description in Lin­ guistic Pragmatics (Amsterdam: North Holland). Haverkate, H. (1984) Speech Acts, Speakers and Hearers. Reference and Referential Strategies in Spanish (Amsterdam: John Benjamins). Haverkate, H. (ed.) (1987) Dia/ogos Hispanicos de Amsterdam No. 6: La Semi6tica del Dialogo (Amsterdam: Rodopi). Haverkate, H. (1993) 'Acerca de los aetas de habla expresivos y comisivos en espafiol', in H. Haverkate, K. Hengeveld and G. Mulder (eds), Aproximaciones pragmalingiiisticas a/ espana/. Dialogos Hispanicos, 12, (Amsterdam: Rodopi) 149-80. Haverkate, H. (1994) La cortesfa verbal. Estudio pragma/ingiiistico (Madrid: Editor­ ial Gredos). Hayashi, T. (1996) 'Politeness in conflict management: a conversation analysis of dispreferred messages from a cognitive perspective', Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 227-55. Heath, C. (1992) 'The delivery and reception of diagnosis in the general-practice consultation', in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds), Talk at Work: Interaction in Insti­ tutional Settings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 235-67. Held, G. (1989) 'On the role of maximization in verbal politeness', Multilingua, 8, 167-206. Herbert, R.K. (1989) 'The ethnography of English compliments: A contrastive sketch', in W. Oleksy (ed.), Contrastive Pragmatics (Amsterdam: John Ben­ jamins) 3-35. Heritage, ]. (1984a) 'A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement', in ].M. Atkinson and]. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 299-345. Heritage,]. (1984b) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology (Cambridge: Polity Press). Heritage, J. (1989) 'Current developments in conversation analysis', in D. Roger and P. Bull (eds), Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters) 21-47. Heritage, J. (1999) 'Conversation analysis at century's end: practices of talk-in­ interaction, their distributions, and their outcomes', Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 1-2, 69-76. Heritage, J. (2001) 'Goffman, Garfinkel and conversation analysis', in M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S.J. Yates (eds), Discourse Theory and Practice. A Reader. (London: Sage) 47-56. Heritage, J. (2003) 'Presenting Emanuel A. Schegloff', in C. Prevignano and P.]. Thibault (eds), Discussing Conversation Analysis. The Work of Emanuel A. Schegloff(Amsterdam: John Benjamins) 1-10. Heritage, J. and Greatbatch, D. (1986) 'Generating applause: a study of rhetoric and response at party political conferences', American Journal ofSociology, 92, 110-57. References 25 7

Heritage, J. and Greatbatch, D. (1991) 'On the institutional character of institu­ tional talk: the case of news interviews', in D. Boden and D.H. Zimmerman (eds), Talk and Social Structure. Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (Cambridge: Polity Press) 93-137. Hernandez Flores, N. (1999) 'Politeness ideology in Spanish coloquial conversa­ tion: the case of advice', Pragmatics, 9.1, 37-49. Hernandez Flores, N. (2004) 'Politeness as 'face' enhancement: an analysis of Spanish conversations between family and friends', in R. Marquez Reiter and M.E. Placencia (eds), Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish (Amsterdam: John Benjamins) 265-84. Hernandez Paricio, F. (1985) Aspectos de la negaci6n (Leon, Spain: Universidad de Leon). Herrero Moreno, G. (2002) 'Los actos disentivos', Verba, 29, 221-42. Hickey, L. (1991) 'Comparatively polite people in Spain and Britain', Association for Contemporary Iberian Studies, 4, 2-6. Hickey, L. (2004) 'Spanish pragmatics: whence, where, whither', in R. Marquez Reiter and M.E. Placencia (eds), Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish (Amsterdam: John Benjamins) 3-14. Hickey, L. (in press) 'Politeness in Spain: thanks but no "thanks"', in L. Hickey and M. Stewart (eds), Politeness in Europe (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters). Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A. and Tsunao, 0. (1986) 'Universals of lin­ guistic politeness: quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English', Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 347-71. Hinkel, E. (1997) 'Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data', Applied Linguistics, 18.1, 1-27. Hjelmquist, E. (1982) 'Discourse processes in dyadic communication', Journal of Pragmatics, 6, 25-38. Hofstede, G. (1984) Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage). Holdcroft, D. (1974) 'Performatives and Statements', Mind, 83, 1-18. Holiday, A. (1988) 'Positivism revisited: the philosophical semantics of Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic', in R. Harris (ed.), Linguistic Thought in England 1914-1945 (London: Duckworth) 165-91. Holmes, ]. (1988) 'Paying compliments: a sex-preferential politeness strategy', Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 445-65. Holmes, ]. (1989) 'Sex differences and apologies: one aspect of communicative competence', Applied Linguistics, 10, 194-213. Holmes, J. (1990a) 'Apologies in New Zealand English', Language in Society, 19, 155-99. Holmes,]. (1990b) 'Politeness strategies in New Zealand women's speech', in A. Bell and J. Holmes (eds), New Zealand Ways of Speaking English (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters) 252-76. Holmes,]. (1991) 'Review of cross-cultural pragmatics: requests and apologies', Language in Society, 20, 119-126. Holmes, J. (1995) 'Sex differences and apologies: one aspect of communicative competence', in H. Douglas Brown and Susan T. Gonzo (eds), Readings on Second Language Acquisition (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents) 362-83. Holmes, ]. and Stubbe, M. (2003) Power and Politeness in the Workplace. A Socio­ linguistic Analysis of Talk at Work (England: Pearson Education). 258 References

Holtgraves, T. (2002) Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum). Holtgraves, T. and Yang, ].M. (1992) 'Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: general principles and differences due to culture and gender', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 246-56. Hopper, R. (1989) 'Conversation analysis and social psychology as descrip­ tions of interpersonal communication', in D. Roger and P. Bull (eds), Conver­ sation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters) 48-65. Hopper, R. (1999) 'Going public about social interaction', Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 77-84. House,]. (1998) 'Politeness and translation', in L. Hickey (ed.), The Pragmatics of Translation (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters) 54-71. House,]. and Kasper, G. (1981) 'Politeness markers in English and German', in F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardised Communi­ cation Situations and Prepatterned Speech (The Hague: Mouton) 157-85. Hutchby, I. and Drew, P. (1995) 'Conversation analysis', in]. Verschueren, ]. Ostman, and]. Blommaert (eds), Handbook of Pragmatics: Manual (Amsterdam: John Benjamins) 182-9. Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. (1998) Conversation Analysis (Cambridge: Polity). Hymes, D. (1962) 'The ethnography of speaking', Anthropology and Human Behav­ ior (Washington DC: Anthropological Society of Washington). Hymes, D. (1967) 'Models of interaction of language and social setting', Journal of Social Issues, 33, 8-28. Hymes, D. (1972a [1964]) 'Toward ethnographies of communication: the analy­ sis of communicative events', in P.P. Giglioli (ed.), Language and Social Context (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin) 21-43. Hymes, D. (1972b) 'Models of the interaction of language and social life', in]. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds), Directions in Sociolinguistics: the Ethnography of Communication (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston) 35-71. Hymes, D.H. (1974) Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press). Hymes, D. (1986) 'Discourse: scope without depth', International journal of the Sociology of Language, 57, 49-89. Ide, S. (1989) 'Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of univer­ sals of linguistic politeness', Multilingua, 8, 223-48. Ide, S. (1993) 'Preface: the search for integrated universals in linguistic polite­ ness', Multilingua, 12, 7-11. Irvine,]. (1995) 'Honorifics', in]. Verschueren, ]. Ostman and]. Blommaert (eds), Handbook of Pragmatics (Amsterdam: Benjamins) 1-22. Janney, R. and Arndt, H. (1993) 'Universality and relativity in cross-cultural politeness research: A historical perspective', Multilingua, 12, 13-50. Jaworski, A. and Coupland, N. (eds) (1999) The Discourse Reader (London: Routledge). Jefferson, G. (1972) 'Side sequences', in D. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in Social Inter­ action (New York: Free Press) 294-338. Jefferson, G. (1979) 'A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance declination', in G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (New York: Irvington) 79-96. References 259

Jefferson, G. (1984) 'On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles', in J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 346-69. Jefferson, G. (1985) 'An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter', in T.A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis 3: Discourse and Dialogue (London: Academic Press) 25-34. Jefferson, G. (1986) 'Transcript notation', in J. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Interaction: Studies in Conversation Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) ix-xvi. Jefferson, G. (1987) 'On exposed and embedded correction in conversation', in G. Button and J.R.E. Lee (eds), Talk and Social Organization (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters) 86-100. Jefferson, G. (1990) 'List-construction as a task and a resource', in G. Psathas (ed.), Interaction Competence (Washington, DC: International Institute for Eth­ nomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America) 63-92. Jefferson, G. (ed.) (1995 [1992]) Harvey Sacks. Lectures on Conversation. Vols I and II (Oxford: Blackwell). Jefferson, G., Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E. (1987) 'Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy', in G. Button and ].R.E. Lee (eds), Talk and Social Organization (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters) 152-205. Johnston, K., Kasper, G. and Ross, S. (1998) 'Effect of rejoinders in production questionnnaires', Applied Linguistics, 19.2, 157-82. Kannetzky, F. (2002) 'Expressibility, explicability, and taxonomy', in G. Grewen­ dorf and G. Meggle (eds), Speech Acts, Mind and Social Reality: Discussions with John R. Searle (Dordrecht: Kluwer) 65-82. Kasher, A. (1977) 'What is a theory of use?', Journal of Pragmatics, 1, 105-20. Kasher, A. (1986) 'Politeness and rationality', in]. Johansen and H. Sonne (eds), Pragmatics and Linguistics: Festshcrift for Jacob Mey on his 60th birthday, 30th October 1986 (Odense: Odense University Press) 103-14. Kasper, G. (1994) 'Politeness', in R. Asher and]. Simpson (eds), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (Oxford: Pergamon Press) 3206-11. Kasper, G. (1996) 'Politeness', in J. Verschueren,]. Ostman, J. Blommaert and C. Bulcaen (eds), Handbook of Pragmatics (Amsterdam: Benjamins) 1-20. Kasper, G. (2000) 'Data collection in pragmatics research', in H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally Speaking. Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures (London: Continuum) 316-41. Kasper, G. and Blum-Kulka, S. (eds) (1993) Interlanguage Pragmatics (New York: Oxford University Press). Kasper, G. and Dahl, M. (1991) 'Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics', Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 215-47. Keck, G. and Stubbs, M. (1984) 'Koschmieder on speech act theory: a historical note', Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 305-10. Keenan, E. (1976) 'The universality of conversational postulates', Language in Society, 5, 67-80. Kelly, A. (2001) 'Reporting a service request', in A. McHoul and M. Rapley (eds), How to Analyse Talk in Institutional Settings: A Casebook of Methods (London: Continuum) 72-85. 260 References

Kempson, R. (1977) Semantic Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1992) Les interactions verbales, val. II (Paris: A. Colin). Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1997) 'A multilevel approach in the study of talk-in­ interaction', Pragmatics, 7, 1-18. Kesselheim, W. (2002) 'National identity in interaction: the Argentine case', in S. Hester and W. Housley (eds), Language, Interaction, and National Identity: Studies in the Social Organisation of National Identity in Talk-in-Interaction (Alder­ shot: Ashgate) 167-98. Kingwell, M. (1993) 'Is it rational to be polite?', Journal o(Philosophy, 90, 387-404. Kjaerbeck, S. (1998) 'The organization of discourse units in Mexican and Danish business negotiations', Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 347-62. Koike, D. (1989) 'Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: speech acts in interlanguage', Modem Language Journal, 73, 279-89. Koike, D. (1994) 'Negation in Spanish and English suggestions and requests: mitigating effects?', Journal of' Pragmatics, 21, 513-26. Koike, D. (1998) 'La sugerencia en espana!: una perpectiva comparativa', in H. Haverkate, G. Mulder and C. Fraile Maldonado (eds), La pragmatica /ingiifstica del espaiiol. Recientes desarro/los, Dialogos Hispanicos, 22 (Amsterdam, Rodopi) 211-35. Koschmieder, E. (1929) 'Zeitbezug und Sprache', in Beitrag zur Aspekt- und Tempusfrage (Wissenschaftliche Grundfragen, Philosophische Abhandlungen, Heft 11.) (Leipzig/Berlin: Felix Meiner) (Repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1971). Krauss, R. and Fussell, S. (1996) 'Social psychological models of interpersonal communication', in E. Higgings and A. Kruglanski (eds) Social Psychology: Hand­ book of' Basic Principles (New York: Guildford) 655-701. Kuiper, K. and Tan Gek Lin, D. (1989) 'Cultural congruence and conflict in the acquisition of formulae in a second language', in 0. Garcia and R. Otheguy (eds), English Across Cultures (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter) 281-304. Labov, W. (1966) The Social Stratification of' English in New York City (Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics). Labov, W. (1972) Sociolinguistic Patterns (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press). Labov, W. and Fanshel, D. (1977) Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conver­ sation (New York: Academic Press). Lachenicht, L. (1980) 'Aggravating language: a study of abusive and insulting language', International Journal of' Human Communication, 13, 607-88. Lakoff, R. (1973) 'The logic of politeness; or minding your p's and q's', Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of' the Chicago Linguistic Society (Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society) 292-305. Lakoff, R. (1990) Talking Power. The Politics of' Language Basic Books (New York). Le Pair, R. (1996) 'Spanish request strategies: a cross-cultural analysis from an intercultural perspective', Language Sciences, 18, 651-70. Leech, G. (1981a) 'Pragmatics and conversational rhetoric', in H. Parret, M. Sbisa and]. Verschueren (eds), Possibilities and Limitations of' Pragmatics (Amsterdam: John Benjamins) 413-41. Leech, G. (1981b) Semantics: The Study of' Meaning (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin). References 261

Leech, G. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics (London: Longman). Leech, G. and Thomas, ]. (2000 [1988]) 'Lenguaje, significado y contexto: Pragmatica', in]. Gomez (ed.), Pragmatica. Conceptos Claves (Quito: Abya-Yala) 9-69. Lerner, G.H. (1996) 'On the "semi-permeable" character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker', in E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff and S. Thompson (eds), Interaction and Grammar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 238-76. Levenston, E. (1975) 'Aspects of testing the oral proficieny of adult immigrants to Canada', in L. Palmer and B. Spolsky (eds), Papers on Language Testing 1967-1974 (Washington, DC: TESOL). Levinson, S.C. (1979) 'Activity types and language', Linguistics, 17, 365-99. Levinson, S.C. (1983) Pragmatics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Levinson, S.C. (1988) 'Putting linguistics on a proper footing: explorations in Goffman's concepts of participation', in P. Drew and A. Wootton (eds), Erving Coffman: Exploring the Interaction Order (Oxford: Polity Press/Basil Blackwell), 161-227. Lindstrom, A. (1994) 'Identification and recognition in Swedish telephone con­ versations', Language in Society, 23, 231-52. Linell, P. (1996) Approaching Dialogue: Talk and Interaction in Dialogical Perspectives (Linkoping: Linkopings Universitet). Linell, P. and Fredin, E. (1995) 'Negotiating terms in social welfare office talk', in A. Firth (ed.), The Discourse of Negotiation: Studies of Language in the Workplace (Oxford: Pergamon) 299-318. Linell, P. and Markova, I. (1993) 'Acts in discourse: from monological speech acts to dialogical inter-acts', Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 23, 173-95. Lipski,]. (1994) Latin American Spanish (London: Longman). Lorenzo, N. and Bou, P. (2003) 'Gender and politeness: Spanish and British under­ graduates' perceptions of appropriate requests', in]. Santaemilia (ed.), Genera, Lenguaje y Traducci6n (Valencia: Universitat de Valencia/Direcci6n General de la Mujer) 187-99. Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2001) 'Compliment responses among British and Spanish uni­ versity students: a contrastive study', Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 107-27. Loveday, L. (1983) 'Rhetoric patterns in conflict: the socio-cultural relativity of discourse-organizing processes', Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 169-90. Luke, K.K. and Pavlidou, T.S. (eds) (2002) Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure across Languages and Cultures (Amsterdam: John Benjamins). Lynch, M. (2002) 'From naturally occurring data to naturally organized ordinary activities: comment on Speer', Discourse Studies, 4.4, 531-37. Madariaga, S. (1928) Englishmen, Frenchmen and Spaniards (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Malinowski, B. (1930) 'Kinship', Man, 30, 9-29. Manes,]. (1983) 'Compliments: A mirror of cultural values', inN. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition (Rowley, MA: Newbury House) 96-102. Manes,]. and Wolfson, N. (1981) 'The compliment formula', in F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardised Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech (The Hague: Mouton) 115-32. 262 References

Mao, L. (1994) 'Beyond politeness theory: "face" revisited and renewed', Journal ofPragmatics, 21, 451-86. Markee, N. (2000) Conversation Analysis (Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum). Marquez Reiter, R. (1997) 'Politeness phenomena in British English and Uruguayan Spanish: the case of requests', Miscelanea, 18, 159-67. Marquez Reiter, R. (1998) 'The teaching of "politeness" in the language class­ room', in L Vazquez Orta and L Guillen Galve (eds), Perspectivas pragmaticas en lingiiistica aplicada (Zaragoza: Anubar) 291-97. Marquez Reiter, R. (2000) Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay (Amsterdam: John Benjamins). Marquez Reiter, R. (2001) 'The case of apologies in English and Spanish', in A. Moreno and V. Colwell (eds), Perspectivas recientes sabre el discurso (Le6n: AESLA, CD-Rom). Marquez Reiter, R. (2002) 'A contrastive study of conventional indirectness in Spanish: Evidence from Peninsular and Uruguayan Spanish', Pragmatics, 12, 135-51. Marquez Reiter, R. (2003) 'Institutional telephone openings in Spanish', Paper presented at the 8th International Pragmatics Conference (Toronto: University of Toronto). Marquez Reiter, R. and Placencia, M.E. (2004) 'Displaying closeness and respect­ ful distance in Montevidean and Quiteiio service encounters', in R. Marquez Reiter and M.E. Placencia (eds), Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish (Ams­ terdam: John Benjamins) 121-55. Marquez Reiter, R., Rainey, I. and Fulcher, G. (forthcoming) 'A comparative study of certainty and conventional indirectness: Evidence from British English and Peninsular Spanish', Applied Linguistics, 26, 1-31. Marriot, H.E. (1995) '"Deviations" in an intercultural business negotiation', in A. Firth (ed.) The Discourse of Negotiation: Studies of Language in the Workplace (Oxford: Pergamon) 247-68. Martin Rojo, L. (2000) 'Enfrentamiento y consenso en los debates parlamenta­ rios sobre !a politica de inmigraci6n en Espana', Oralia, 3, 113-48. Martinich, A. (2002) 'On the proper treatment of performatives', in G. Grewendorf and G. Meggle (eds), Speech Acts, Mind and Social Reality. Discus­ sions with John R. Searle (Dordrecht: Kluwer) 93-104. Matsumoto, Y. (1988) 'Reexamination of the universality of face: politeness phe­ nomena in Japanese', Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403-26. Matsumoto, Y. (1989) 'Politeness and conversational universals: observations from Japanese', Multilingua, 8, 207-21. McHoul, A. and Rapley, M. (2001) How to Analyse Talk in Institutional Settings: A Casebook of Methods (London: Continuum). McLaughlin, M., Cody, M. and O'Hair, D. (1983) 'The management of failure events: some contextual determinants of accounting behaviour', Human Communication Research, 9, 208-24. Mey, J. (1985) 'Whose Language? A Study in Linguistic Pragmatics' (Amsterdam: john Benjamins). Mey, ]. (ed.) (1998) Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics (Oxford: Elsevier). Mey, J. (2001) Pragmatics: An Introduction (London: Blackwell). Mills, S. (2003) Gender and Politeness (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Milroy, j. (1981) Regional Accents of English: Belfast (Belfast: Blackstaff). References 263

Moerman, M. (1988) Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press). Moeschler, J. (1985) Argumentation et conversation (Paris: Hatier). Moreno Cabrera, J.C. (1994) Curso universitario de lingiiistica general, Vol. II (Madrid: Sintesis). Morris, C. (1938) Foundations of a Theory of Signs. Foundations of the Unity of Science: Towards an International Encyclopedia of Unified Signs, vols 1, 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Moyer, M.G. (1998) 'Bilingual conversation strategies in Gibraltar', in P. Auer (ed.), Code-switching in Conversation. Language, Interaction and Identity (London/New York: Routledge) 215-34. Muelder Eaton, M. (1981) 'John R. Searle, expression and meaning: studies in the theory of speech acts. Review', Centrum, New Series, 1, 149-57. Mullany, L. (2002) "'I don't think you want me to get a word in edgeways do you John?" Re-assessing (im)politeness, language and gender in political broadcast interviews', Politeness and Context, 3, 1-21 (Working Papers on the Web, www.shu.ac.uk/wpw). Musselman Shank, R. (2002a) 'Hacia una maxima de participaci6n conversa­ cional', in Z. Estrada Fernandez and R.M. Ortiz Ciscomani (eds), Memorias del Sexto Encuentro Internacional de Lingiiistica en el Noroeste, Vol. III (Hermosillo, Sonora: Editorial UniSon) 15-38. Musselman Shank, R. (2002b) '"lDuo o duelo?" Estrategias de cambio del turno conversacional', Paper presented at the XIII Congreso Internacional de Ia ALFAL, Universidad de Costa Rica, 18-23 February. Nieto Garcia, J.M. (1995) Introducci6n al ami/isis del discurso hablado (Granada: Universidad de Granada). Nieto y Otero, M.J. (2003) 'Afectividad y cortesia: analisis de conversaciones politicas', in D. Bravo (ed.), Aetas del Primer Coloquio del Programa EDICE. La perspectiva no entocentrista de Ia cortesia: ldentidad sociocultural de las comunidades hispanohablantes. www. primercoloquio.edice.org/ Aetas/ actas.htm (Stockholm: University of Stockholm) 240-56 (accessed July 2003) Nwoye, 0. (1989) 'Linguistic politeness in Igbo', Multilingua, 8, 259-75. Ochs, E. (1979) 'Transcription as theory', in E. Ochs and B. Schieffelin (eds), Developmental Pragmatics (New York: Academic Press) 43-72. Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B. (1986) 'Language acquisition and socialization: three developmental stories and their applications', in R. Shweder and R. Levine (eds) Culture Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 276-323. O'Driscoll, ]. (1996) 'About face: a defence and elaboration of universal dualism', Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 1-32. Olshtain, E. and Cohen, A. (1983) 'Apology: a speech act set', inN. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition (Rowley, MA: Newbury House) 18-35. Olshtain, E. and Weinbach, L. (1987) 'Complaints: a study of speech act behav­ ior among native and nonnative speakers of Hebrew', in]. Verschueren and M. Bertuccelli-Papi (eds), The Pragmatic Perspective: Selected Papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference (Amsterdam: John Benjamins) 195-208. Oppenheim, A. (1966) Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement (London: Heinemann). 264 References

Orestrom, B. (1983) Tum-Taking in English Conversation. Lund Studies in English 66 (Lund: CWK Gleerup). Ortega Olivares,]. (1985) 'Apendices modalizadores en espafiol: Los "comproba­ tivos" ', in Estudios romanicos dedicados al prof Andres Soria Ortega, Vol. 1 (Granada: Universidad de Granada) 239-55. Ortega Olivares, ]. (1986) 'Aproximaci6n al mecanismo de la conversaci6n: Apendices "justificativos" ', Verba, 13, 269-90. Osgood, C.E., Suci, G. and Tannenbaum, P. (1957) The Measurement of Meaning (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press). Pan, Y. (1995) 'Power behind linguistic behaviour: analysis of politeness in Chinese official settings', Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 462-84. Parret, H., Sbisa, M. and Verschueren, ]. (1981) 'Introduction', in H. Parret, M. Sbisa and J. Verschueren (eds), Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics (Amsterdam: john Benjamins) 1-16. Pavlidou, T.S. (1994) 'Contrasting German-Greek politeness and the conse­ quences', Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 487-511. Pavlidou, T.S. (1998) 'Greek and German telephone closings: patterns of confir­ mation and agreement', Pragmatics, 8, 79-94. Penman, R. (1990) 'Facework and politeness: multiple goals in courtroom dis­ course', Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9, 15-38. Philipsen, G. (1998) 'Ethnography of speaking', in ]. Mey (ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics (Oxford: Elsevier) 284-89. Pilleux, M. (1996) 'Uso preferencial de actos de habla en hombres y mujeres. Analisis sociolingiiistico', Estudios Filol6gicos, 31, 151-62. Placencia, M.E. (1990) Unpublished corpus of naturally occurring telephone con­ versations in Ecuadorian Spanish (Quito). Placencia, M.E. (1991) 'Telephone conversations revisited: a cross-cultural study of conversational mechanisms employed over the telephone in Ecuadorian Spanish and British English', PhD dissertation (Lancaster: University of Lancaster). Placencia, M.E. (1992) 'Politeness in mediated telephone conversations in Ecuadorian Spanish and British English', Language Learning Journal, 6, 80-2. Placencia, M.E. (1994) 'Pragmatics across varieties of Spanish', Donaire, 2, 65-77. Placencia, M.E. (1996) 'Politeness in Ecuadorian Spanish', Multilingua, 15, 13-34. Placencia, M.E. (1997a) 'Opening up closings: the Ecuadorian way', Text, 17.1, 53-81. Placencia, M.E. (1997b) 'Address forms in Ecuadorian Spanish', Hispanic Linguis­ tics, 9, 165-202. Placencia, M.E. (1998) 'Pragmatic variation: Ecuadorian Spanish vs Peninsular Spanish', Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2.1, 71-106. Placencia, M.E. (1999) Unpublished corpus of requests, complaints and other speech acts in Ecuadorian Spanish (Quito) and Peninsular Spanish (Zaragoza) obtained through a production questionnaire. Placencia, M.E. (2000) '"iQue cara tienes!" The language of complaints in Ecuadorian and Peninsular Spanish', Unpublished manuscript. Placencia, M.E. (2001) 'Inequality in address behavior at public institutions in La Paz, Bolivia', Anthropological Linguistics, 43, 198-217. Placencia, M.E. (2004) 'Rapport-building activities in corner shop interactions', Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8, 215-45. References 265

Placencia, M.E. (forthcoming) 'Pragmatic variation in corner store interactions in Quito and Madrid', Hispania. Placencia, M.E. and Yepez, L.M. (1999) 'Compliments in Ecuadorian Spanish', Lengua, 9, 83-121. Pomerantz, A. (1975) 'Second assessments: a study of some features of agree­ ments/disagreements', PhD dissertation (Irvine, CA: University of California). Pomerantz, A. (1978) 'Compliment responses: notes on the co-operation of mul­ tiple constraints', in]. Schenkein (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversa­ tional Interaction (New York: Academic Press). 79-112. Pomerantz, A. (1984) 'Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turns shapes', in J.M. Atkinson and]. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press) 57-101. Pomerantz, A. (1998) 'Multiple interpretations of context: how are they useful?', Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31, 123-32. Pomerantz, A. and Fehr, B.]. (1997) 'Conversation analysis: an approach to the study of social action as sense making practices', in T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction (London: Sage) 64-91. Potter, ]. and Wetherell, M. (1995) 'Natural order: why social psychologists should study (a constructed version of) natural language, and why they have not done so', Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 216-22. Pratt, M.L. (1981) 'The ideology of speech-act theory', Centrum New Series, 1, 5-18. Psathas, G. (1998) 'Ethnomethodology', in]. Mey (ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics' (Amsterdam: Elsevier) 290-4. Puga Larrain, ]. (1997) La atenuaci6n en el Castellano de Chile: Un enfoque pragma­ lingilistico, Estudios Iberoamericanos (Tirant Lo Blanch Libros: Universitat de Valencia). Py, B. and Jeanneret, R. (eds) ( 1989) Minorisation linguistique et interaction (Geneva: Droz). Raga Gimeno, F. and Sanchez Lopez, E. (1999) 'La problematica de Ia toma de turnos en Ia comunicaci6n intercultural', in ]. Fernandez Gonzalez, C. Fernandez Juncal, M. Marcos Sanchez, E. Prieto de los Mozos, and L. Santos Rio (eds), Lingiiistica para el Siglo XXI, Vol. II (Salamanca: Ediciones Universi­ dad de Salamanca) 1349-55. Rall, M. (1993) 'Manana te hablo. La deixis temporal en el acto de Ia promesa y su entorno cultural', Discurso, Autumn, 1-15. Ramirez Saborio, L. (2000) 'Analisis de conversaciones en tres dramatizaciones infantiles: caracteristicas del discurso', Filologia y Lingiiistica, 26, 201-19. Rasmussen, G. and Wagner,]. (2002) 'Language choice in international telephone conversations', in K.K. Luke and T.S. Pavlidou (eds), Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure across Languages and Cultures (Amsterdam: John Benjamins) 111-31. Reyes, G. (1990) La pragmatica lingilistica. El estudio del usa dellenguaje (Barcelona: Montesinos). Rhodes, R. (1989) '"We are going to go there": Positive politeness in Ojibwa', Multilingua, 8, 249-58. Rintell, E. (1981) 'Sociolinguistic variation and pragmatic ability: a look at learners', International Journal ofthe Sociology of Language, 27, 11-34. 266 References

Rintell, E. and Mitchell, C. (1989) 'Studying Requests and Apologies: An Inquiry into Method', in S. Blum-Kulka et al., Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (Norwood: N.J. Ablex) 248-72. Roger, D. and Bull, P. (1989) 'Introduction: concepts of interpersonal communi­ cation', in D. Roger and P. Bull (eds), Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspec­ tive (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters) 1-8. Rommetveit, R. (1985) 'Language acquisition as increasing linguistic structuring of experience and symbolic behaviour control', in J. Wertsch (ed.), Culture, Communication and Cognition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Rosaldo, M.Z. (1982) 'The things we do with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory', Language in Society, 11, 203-37. Rose, K. (1992) 'Speech acts and questionnaires: the effect of hearer response', Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 49-62. Rose, K. (1994) 'On validity of discourse completion tests in non-Western context', Applied Linguistics, 15.1, 1-14. Rose, K. and Ono, R. (1995) 'Eliciting speech act data in Japanese: the effect of questionnaire type', Language Learning, 45.2, 191-223. Ruiz de Zarobe, L. (2000/2001) 'Estrategias de invitacion en espafiol e imagen social de los hablantes: Un estudio empirico', PragmalingiUstica, 8.9, 261-78. Rundstrom, C. (2000) 'La regulacion de temas en conversaciones monoculturales e interculturales', in J.J. de Bustos, P. Charaudeau, J.L. Giron Alconchel, S. Iglesias Recuero and C. Lopez Alonso (eds), Lengua, Discurso, Vol. II (Madrid: Visor-UCM) 1697-709. Ruzickova, E. (1998) 'Apologies in Cuban Spanish', in J. Gutil~rrez-Rexach and J. del Valle (eds), Proceedings of the First Hispanic Linguistics Colloquium (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University) 126-49. Sacks, H. (1984) 'On doing "being ordinary"', in J.M. Atkinson and]. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 413-29. Sacks, H. (1995 [1992]) Harvey Sacks: Lectures on Conversation. Vols I and II (G. Jefferson, ed.) (Oxford: Blackwell). Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E.A. (1979) 'Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction', in G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (New York: Irvington) 294-369. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. and Jefferson, G. (1974) 'A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation', Language 50.4, 696-735. Sadock, J. (1974) Toward a Linguistic Theory ofSpeech Acts (New York: Academic Press). Samovar, L.A. and Porter, R.E. (eds) (1976) Intercultural Communication: A Reader (Belmont: Wadsworth). Sanchez Lanza, C. (2003) 'El discurso de la cortesia en puestos de atencion al publico en la Argentina (instituciones de salud publica y bienestar social)', in D. Bravo (ed.), Aetas del Primer Coloquio del Programa EDICE. La perspectiva no etnocentrista de Ia cortesia: Identidad sociocultural de las comunidades hispano­ hablantes. www.primercoloquio.edice.org/ Actas/actas.htm (Stockholm: Univer­ sity of Stockholm) 332-45 (accessed July 2003). Santamaria Garcia, C. (2002) 'Turn format in agreeing and disagreeing responses', in L. Iglesias Rabade and S.M. Doval Suarez (gen. eds), Studies in Contrastive Lin­ guistics. Proceedings of the 2nd International Contrastive Linguistics Conference, San­ tiago de Compostela, October 2001 (Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela) 935-46. References 267

Saville-Troike, M. (1997) 'The ethnographic analysis of communicative events', inN. Coupland and A. Jaworski (eds), Sociolinguistics: A Reader and Coursebook (London: Macmillan) 126-44. Schegloff, E.A. (1972(1968]) 'Sequencing in Conversational Openings', in J. Laver and S. Hutcheson (eds), Communication in Face-to-Face Interaction (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin) 374-405. Schegloff, E.A. (1979) 'Identification and Recognition in telephone conversation openings', in G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (New York: Irvington) 23-78. Schegloff, E.A. (1982) 'Discourse as an interactional achievement: some uses of "uh huh" and other things that come between sentences', in D. Tannen (ed.), Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Georgetown University Round Table on Lan­ guages and Linguistics 1981 (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press) 71-93. Schegloff, E.A. (1984) 'On some questions and ambiguities in conversation', in ].M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Con­ versation Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 28-52. Schegloff, E.A. (1986) 'The routine as achievement', Human Studies, 9, 111-51. Schegloff, E.A. (1987) 'Analyzing single episodes of interaction: an exercise in conversation analysis', Social Psychology Quarterly, 50.2, 101-14. Schegloff, E.A. (1988) 'Presequences and indirection', Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 55-62. Schegloff, E.A. (1992a) 'In another context', in A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 191-227. Schegloff, E.A. (1992b) 'Repair after next turn: the last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation', American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1295-345. Schegloff, E.A. (1993) 'Reflections on quantification in the study of conversa­ tion', Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 99-128. Schegloff, E.A. (1995 [1992]) 'Introduction', in G. Jefferson (ed.), Harvey Sacks. Lectures on Conversation. Volume I (Oxford: Blackwell) ix-lxii. Schegloff, E.A. (1997) 'Whose text? Whose context?', Discourse and Society, 8, 165-87. Schegloff, E.A. (1999) '"Schegloff's texts" as "Billig's data": A critical reply', Discourse and Society, 10, 558-72. Schegloff, E.A. (2002) 'Beginnings in the telephone', in].E. Katz and M.A. Aakhus (eds), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977) 'The preference for self­ correction in the organization of repair in conversation', Language, 53, 361-82. Schegloff, E.A. and Sacks, H. (1974 [1973]) 'Opening up closings', in R. Turner (ed.), Ethnomethodology (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Education) 233-64. Schiffrin, D. (1994) Approaches to Discourse (Oxford: Blackwell). Schrader-Kniffki, M. (2001) 'Cortesia en transici6n: La dinamica de Ia imagen social de los zapotecas bilingiies en Oaxaca/Mexico', Oralia, 4, 213-41. Schrader-Kniffki, M. (2003) 'Contrastes de Ia imagen sociocultural y su funci6n en situaciones comunicativas interculturales', in D. Bravo (ed.), Aetas del Primer Coloquio del Programa EDICE. La perspectiva no etnocentrista de /a cortesia: Iden­ tidad sociocultural de las comunidades hispanohablantes. www.primercoloquio. 268 References

edice.org/Actas/actas.htm (Stockholm: University of Stockholm) 143-8 (accessed July 2003). Schrader-Kniffki, M. (2004) 'Speaking Spanish with Zapotec meaning. Requests and promises in intercultural communication in Oaxaca, Mexico', in R. Marquez Reiter and M.E. Placencia (eds), Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 157-74. Scallon, R. and Scallon, S. (1981) Literacy and Face in Interethnic Communication (Norwood, NJ: Ablex). Scallon, R. and Scallon, S. (1983) 'Interethnic communication', in J. Richards and R. Schmidt (eds), Language and Communication (London: Longman) 156-88. Scallon, R. and Scallon, S. (1995) Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach (Oxford: Blackwell). Searle, J.R. (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay on the Philosophy ofLanguage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Searle, J.R. (1975) 'Indirect speech acts', in P. Cole and]. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (New York: Academic Press) 59-82. Searle, ].R. (1976) 'A classification of illocutionary acts', Language in Society, 5, 1-23. Searle, j.R. (1979) Expression and Meaning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Searle, J.R. (1989) 'How performatives work', Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 535-58. Searle, ].R. (2002) 'Speech acts, mind and social reality', in G. Grewendorf and G. Meggle (eds), Speech Acts, Mind and Social Reality: Discussions with fohn R. Searle (Dordrecht: Kluwer) 3-16. Searle, ].R. and Vanderveken, D. (1985) Foundations of Illocutionary Logic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Serrano Montesinos, M.J. (2000) 'La producci6n de Ia cortesia verbal y Ia deixis socio-comunicativa', Oralia, 3, 199-219. Serrano Montesinos, M.]. (2000/2001) 'Hacia una caracterizaci6n lingtiistica de los honorificos como unidades de cortesia verbal', Revista Espanola de Lingiiis­ tica Aplicada, 14, 401-11. Shimanoff, S. (1977) 'Investigating politeness', in E. Keenan and T. Bennet (eds), Discourse across Time and Space (Los Angeles: University of Southern California) 213-41. Siebel, M. (2002) 'What is an illocutionary point?', in G. Grewendorf and G. Meggle (eds), Speech Acts, Mind and Social Reality: Discussions with John R. Searle (Dordrecht: Kluwer) 125-39. Sieber, J. (1992) Planning Ethically Responsible Research: A Guide for Students and Internal Review Boards (Newbury Park: Sage). Sifianou, M. (1989) 'On the telephone again! Differences in telephone behaviour: England versus Greece', Language in Society, 18, 527-44. Sifianou, M. (1992) Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Silverman, D. (1993a) 'The machinery of interaction: remaking social science', Sociological Review, 41, 731-52. Silverman, D. (1993b) Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction (London: Sage). References 269

Silverman, D. (1998) Harvey Sacks: Social Science and Conversation Analysis (New York: Oxford University Press). Sinclair,]. McH. and Coulthard, R.M. (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English used by Teachers and Pupils (London: Oxford University Press). Slugoski, B. and Turnbull, W. (1988) 'Cruel to be kind and kind to be cruel: sarcasm, banter and social relations', Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 101-21. Smith-Hefner, N. (1981) 'To level or not to level: codes of politeness and pres­ tige in rural Java', in C. Masek, R. Hendrick and M. Miller (eds), Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behaviour of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society) 211-17. Snow, C., Perlmann, R., Gleason, J. and Hooshyar, N. (1990) 'Developmental per­ spectives on politeness: sources of children's knowledge', Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 289-305. Speer, S.A. (2002) '"Natural" and "contrived" data: a sustainable distinction?', Discourse Studies, 4, 511-25. Spencer-Oatey, H. (1996) 'Reconsidering power and distance', Journal of Prag­ matics, 26, 1-24. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000) 'Rapport management: a framework for analysis', in H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally Speaking. Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures (London: Continuum) 11-46. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2002) 'Managing rapport in talk: using rapport sensitive inci­ dents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations', Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 529-45. Spencer-Oatey, H. and Ng, P. (2001) 'Reconsidering Chinese modesty: Hong Kong and Mainland Chinese evaluative judgments of compliment responses', Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 11, 181-201. Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986) Relevance: Communication and Cognition (Oxford, Blackwell). Spradley, J. (1980) Participant Observation (New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston). Stokoe, E. and Smithson, J. (2001) 'Making gender relevant: conversation analy­ sis and gender categories in interaction', Discourse and Society, 12.2, 217-44. Strecker, I. (1993) 'Cultural variations in the notion of "face"', Multilingua, 12, 119-41. Streeck, J. (1980) 'Speech acts in interaction: a critique of Searle', Discourse Processes, 3, 133-54. Stubbs, M. (1983) Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language (Oxford: Blackwell). Svennevig, J. (1999) Getting Acquainted in Conversation: A Study of Initial Interac­ tions (Amsterdam: John Benjamins). Swingewood, A. (1999) 'Sociological theory', in S. Taylor (ed.), Sociology: Issues and Debates (Basingstoke: Macmillan) 51-72. Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2002) 'Telephone conversation openings in Persian', in K.K. Luke and T.S. Pavlidou (eds), Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure across Languages and Cultures (Amsterdam: John Benjamins) 87-109. Tannen, D. (1981) 'The machine-gun question: an example of conversational style', Journal of Pragmatics, 5, 383-97. 270 References

Tannen, D. (1984) Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk Among Friends (Norwood, N]: Ablex). Tannen, D. (1991) You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation (London: Virago). Tannen, D. (1999) The Argument Culture: Stopping America's War of Words (New York: Ballantine). Taylor, T. (1988) 'Alan Gardiner's The Theory of Speech and Language: Empiricist Pragmatics', in R. Harris (ed.), Linguistic Thought in England 1914-1945 (London: Duckworth) 132-47. Taylor, T. and Cameron, D. (1987) Analysing Conversation: Rules and Units in the Structure of Talk (Oxford: Pergamon). ten Have, P. (1991) 'Talk and institution: a reconsideration of the "asymmetry" of doctor-patient interaction', in D. Boden and D.H. Zimmerman (eds), Talk and Social Structure. Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (Cam­ bridge: Polity Press) 138-63. ten Have, P. (1995) 'Disposal negotiations in general practice consultations', in A. Firth (ed.), The Discourse of Negotiation: Studies of Language in the Workplace (Oxford: Pergamon) 319-44. ten Have, P. (1999) Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide (London: Sage). ten Have, P. (2002) 'Ontology or methodology? Comments on Speer's "natural" and "contrived" data: a sustainable distinction?', Discourse Studies, 4, 527-37. Thomas, ]. (1983) 'Cross-cultural pragmatic failure', Applied Linguistics, 4.2, 91-112. Thomas, ]. (1986) 'The dynamics of discourse: a pragmatic analysis of con­ frontational interaction', Unpublished PhD thesis (University of Lancaster, 1986). Thomas,]. (1989) 'Discourse control in confrontational interaction', in L. Hickey (ed.), The Pragmatics of Style (London: Routledge) 133-56. Thomas,]. (1995) Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics (London: Longman). Thomas,]. (1998) 'Conversational maxims', in]. Mey (ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics (Oxford : Elsevier) 171-5. Thomason, W. and Hopper, R. (1992) 'Pauses, transition relevance, and speaker change', Human Communication Research, 18, 429-44. Thuren, B.M. (1988) Left Hand Left Behind: The Changing Gender System of a Barrio in Valencia, Spain (Stockholm: University of Stockholm, Stockholm Studies in Social Anthropology). Tokunaga, M. (1992) 'Dichotomy in the structures of honorifics in Japanese', Journal of Pragmatics, 2, 127-40. Toscano Mateus, H. (1953) 'El espafiol en el Ecuador', Revista de Filologia Espanola, Anejo 41, (Madrid). Tracy, K. (1998) 'Analyzing context: framing the discussion', Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31, 1-28. Tracy, K. and Tracy, S. (1998) 'Rudeness at 911: reconceptualizing face and face Attack', Human Communication Research, 25, 225-51. Trenchs, M. (1995) 'Pragmatic strategies in Catalan and English complaints: a comparative study of native and EFL speakers', Language Quarterly, 33, 160-82. References 271

Trosborg, A. (1987) 'Apology strategies in natives/non-natives', Journal of Prag­ matics, 11, 147-67. Turnbull, W. (1997) 'An appraisal of pragmatic elicitation techniques for the study of talk', Unpublished manuscript (Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Canada). Turnbull, W. (2003) Language in Action: Psychological Models of Conversation (Hove and New York: Psychology Press). Turner, K. (1996) 'The principal principles of pragmatic inference: politeness', Language Teaching, 2, 1-13. Tus6n Valls, A. (1997) Anti/isis de Ia Conversaci6n (Barcelona: Ariel). Valdes, G. and Pino, C. (1981) 'Muy a tus 6rdenes: compliment responses among Mexican-American bilinguals', Language in Society, 10, 53-72. Valeiras Viso,]. (2002) ' 11 Deja tu mensaje despues de Ia sefial': Despedidas y otros elementos de Ia secci6n de cierre en mensajes dejados en contestadores automaticos en Madrid y Londres', in M.E. Placencia and D. Bravo (eds), Aetas de habla y cortesia en espana/ (Munich: Lincom) 209-32. van Dijk, T. (1993) 'Principles of critical discourse analysis', Discourse Analysis, 4, 249-83. van Rees, M.A. (1992) 'The adequacy of speech act theory for explaining con­ versational phenomena: a response to some conversation analytical critics', Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 31-47. Vazquez Orta, I. (1995) 'A contrastive study of politeness phenomena in England and Spain', Applied and Interdisciplinary Papers, Paper no. 267 (Duisburg: L.A.U.D.). Ventola, E. (1987) The Structure of Social Interaction (London: Frances Pinter). Verschueren, J. (1980) On Speech Act Verbs (Amsterdam: John Benjamins). Verschueren,]. (1995) 'The pragmatic perspective', in]. Verschueren, J. Ostman and]. Blommaert (eds), Handbook of Pragmatics, Manual (Amsterdam: John Benjamins) 1-19. Verschueren,]. (1999) Understanding Pragmatics (London: Arnold). Villemoes, A. (1995) 'Culturally determined facework priorities in Danish and Spanish business negotiation', in K. Ehlich and J. Wagner (eds), The Discourse of Business Negotiation (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter) 291-312. Villemoes, A. (2003) 'How do southern Spaniards create the conditions necessary to initiate negotiations with strangers', Hermes Journal ofLinguistics, 31, 119-34. Vincent, ].M. and Castelfranchi, C. (1981) 'On the art of deception: how to lie while saying the truth', in H. Parret, M. Sbisa and J. Verschueren (eds), Possi­ bilities and Limitations of Pragmatics (Amsterdam: John Benjamins) 749-77. Wagner, J. (1996) 'Introduction', Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 145-6. Walker, J.D.B. (1969) 'Statements and performatives', American Philosophical Quarterly, 6, 217-25. Warnock, G.]. (1973) 'Some types of performative utterance', in I. Berlin, D.F. Pears, ].R. Searle, L.W. Forguson, G. Pitcher and P.F. Strawson and G.]. Warnock, Essays on f. L. Austin (Oxford: Clarendon Press) 69-89. Watts, R. (1989) 'Relevance and relational work: linguistic politeness as politic behaviour', Multilingua, 8, 131-66. Watts, R. (1990) 'Language and politeness in early eighteenth century Britain', Pragmatics, 9.1, 5-20. 272 References

Watts, R. (2003) Politeness (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Watts, R., Ide, S. and Ehlich, K. (eds) (1992) Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 59. (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter). Weizman, E. (1989) 'Requestive hints', inS. Blum-Kulka, ]. House and G. Kasper (eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (Norwood, NJ: Ablex) 71-95. Weizman, E. (1993) 'Interlanguage requestive hints', in G. Kasper and S. Blum­ Kulka (eds), Interlanguage Pragmatics (New York: Oxford University Press) 123-37. Wells, G. (1981) 'Language as interaction', in G. Wells (ed.) Learning through Inter­ action (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 22-72. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Werkhofer, K. (1992) 'Traditional and Modern views: The social constitution of politeness', in R. Watts, S. Ide and K. Ehlich (eds), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 59, (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter). Wierzbicka, A. (1985) 'Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Polish v. English', Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 145-78. Wierzbicka, A. (1987) English Speech Act Verbs (Sydney: Academic Press). Wierzbicka, A. (1991) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interac­ tion, Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 53 (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter). Wittgenstein, L. (1958) Philosophical Investigations (Oxford: Blackwell). Wolfram, W. and Fasold, R. (1974) 'Field methods in the study of social dialects', in W. Wolfram and R. Fasold (eds), The Study of Social Dialects in American English (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall) 36-72. Wolfson, N. (1976) 'Speech event and natural speech: some implications for sociolinguistic methodology', Language in Society, 5, 189-205. Wolfson, N. (1983) 'An empirically-based analysis of compliments in American English', in N. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds), Sociolinguistics and Language Acqui­ sition (Rowley, MA: Newbury House) 83-93. Wolfson, N. (1988) The bulge: a theory of speech behavior and social distance', in ]. Fine (ed.), Second Language Discourse: A Textbook of Current Research (Norwood, NJ: Ablex) 21-38. Wooton, A.]. (1989) 'Remarks on the methodology of conversation analysis', in D. Roger and P. Bull (eds), Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters) 238-58. Wunderlich, D. (1980) 'Methodological remarks on speech act theory', in J.R. Searle, F. Kiefer and M. Bierwisch (eds), Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics (Dordrecht: D. Reidel) 291-312. Yafiez, R.H. (1990) 'The complimenting speech act among Chicano women', in ].]. Bergen (ed.), Spanish in the United States: Sociolinguistic issues (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press) 9-85. Yuan, Y. (2001) 'An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations', Journal ofPrag­ matics, 33, 271-92. Zahn, C. (1984) 'A re-examination of conversational repair', Communication Monographs, 51, 56-66. References 273

Zimmerman, D. (1988) 'On conversation: the conversation analytic perspective', in J. Anderson (ed.), Communication Yearbook, 11 (Beverly Hills: Sage). Zimmerman, D. and West, C. (1975) 'Sex roles, interruptions and silences in con­ versation', in B. Thorne and N. Henley (eds), Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance (Rowley, MA: Newbury House) 105-29. Zimmerman, D.H. and Boden, D. (1991) 'Structure-in-action: an introduction', in D. Boden and D.H. Zimmerman (eds), Talk and Social Structure. Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (Cambridge: Polity Press) 3-43.

Internet resources http:/ /carla.acad.umn.edu/SpeechActs/bibliographyl.html (accessed on 20 June, 2004) This site from the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, Uni­ versity of Minnesota, offers an annotated bibliography of studies on speech acts, organized by category of speech act (e.g. advice, apologies and so forth). http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/ling/staff/ allan/speech_acts_allan.html (accessed on 20 June, 2004) Keith Allan's (1998) paper on speech acts and meaning is found in this site. The author considers, amongst others, the following topics: speakers, hearers and overhearers; locutions, il!ocutions and perlocutions within the hierarchy of acts, speech act classification and definition; cultural diversity; speech acts and dis­ course. The chapter is accompanied by a useful list of references. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/schegloff/ (accessed on 20 June, 2004) Emanuel Schegloff's home page includes an archive of his publications and a transcription module aimed at helping students become familiar with transcrip­ tion conventions employed in CA. http:/ /www2.fmg.uva.nl/emca/ (accessed on 20 june, 2004) Ethno/CA news, produced by Paul ten Have, provides information on eth­ nomethodology and conversation analysis. As described in the page, it is a medium for the exchange of information concerning publications, conferences and other items relevant to Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis among those who work in the field or have a strong interest in it. http:/ /www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/-sscal /index.htm (accessed on 20 June, 2004) Charles Antaki's online resources offers a tutorial for students interested in CA, with an introduction to the field, an explanation of the transcription system employed and a sample analysis of audio/video data that aims to show the type of analyses that CA offers. Author Index

Achugar, M. 13, 73, 231, 239 Boden, D. 87 Alba de Diego, V. 41, 48, 51-2 Bodman, J. 226 Alba Juez, L. 183-4 Bolivar, A. 37, 71, 73-4, 187, 239 Allwood, J. 232 Boretti, S. 189, 233 Alston, W.P. 23, 25, 232 Bou (Franch), P. 63, 65, 66-8, 115, Alvarez-Caccamo, C. 129 119-21, 124, 141, 132 Antonopoulos, E. 100, 236 Boyle, R. 101, 102 Apte, M.L. 192 Bravo, D. 75, 112, 132, 133, 142, Arellano, S. 37, 62, 65-6, 227, 234 161, 167, 172, 173, 174-S, 177, Arndt, H. 144, 145, 162-3, 187 188, 189, 203, 237, 239 Aronson, K. 159 Briz, A. 167, 169-70, 172, 189, 205, Arundale, R. 175 239 Aston, G. 226 Brown, P. 30, SS-6, 89, 104, 118, Atkinson, J.M. 81-2, 84, 87, 92, 96, 125, 127, 144, 145, 148, 149, 104, lOS 154-6, 156-7, 161, 171-2, 174, Auer, P. 123 177, 178, 181, 182, 183, 184, Austin, J.L. 2, S, 6-15, 7-16, 16-17, 185, 186, 189, 190, 195, 206, 20, 21, 24, 42 207, 233, 237, 238 Austin, P. 238 Brown, R. 2, 43 Avila Munoz, A.M. 125, 128-9, 237 Buckwalter, P. 23 7 Ayer, A.J. 8 Bull, P. 110 Bustamante-L6pez, I. 57-8 Bach, K. 12, 26, 53 Button, G. 105-6, 108, 109, 139, Ballesteros Martin, F. 62, 64, 68, 178 236 Baii6n Hernandez, A.M. 115, 117-19, 141, 237 Calsamiglia Blancafort, H. 1, 239 Bar-Hillel, Y. 1 Camacho Adarve, M.M. 1 Bardovi-Harlig, K. 226 Cameron, D. 91,95-6, 104, 117, Bateson, G. 179 241 Bayraktaroglu, A. 161 Canale, M. 179 Baxter, L. 158 Carbo, T. 237 Beebe, L. 226 Carnap, R. 8 Beinhauer, W. 171 Carrasco Santana, A. 171-2, 239 Bengoechea Bartolome, M. 115, 117, Casey, N. 105-6, 139, 236 141 Castelfranchi, C. 26 Benson, D. 86, 87, 97 Cestero Mancera, A.M. 132, 135, Berlin, I. 7, 8, 9 142, 237 Biletzki, A. 1 Cheepen, C. 100 Billig, M. 90 Chen, R. 162, 239 Billmyer, K. 226 Cheng, W. 211 Bilmes, J. 102, 138 Chodorowska-Pilch, M. 28, 51, 75, Bias Arroyo, J.L. 187 169, 186 Blum-Kulka, S. 1, S, 26, 30-S, 36, Chomsky, N. 2, 235 40, 44, 45, 46, 47, so, 56, 57, 60, Ciapusco, G. 236 61, 64, 65, 66, 88, 89, 144, 151, Cicourel, A. 20 159, 161, 163, 177, 180, 181, Clancy, P. 144, 159 183, 185, 205, 225, 232, 233, Clark, H. 26, 34, 38, 129, 224 234, 238 Clayman, S.E. 104-S, 234

274 Author Index 275

Clyne, M. 148, 233 Felix-Brasdefer, ].C. 63, 101, 185, Coates, J. 96 224, 226, 239 Cohen, A. 57, 182, 223, 224 Ferrer, M.C. 28, 57, 58-60, 189, 234 Cohen, L. 214,221,228,229 Figueroa, E. 217 Cordelia, M. 71, 72, 124, 141, 182 Fillmore, C.]. S Cordisco, A. 189 Firth, A. 79-80, 81, 87 Cortes Rodriguez, L. 1, 3, 231 Fiske, D.W. 108, 236 Coulmas, F. 1 Fitch, K. 148, 234 Coulthard, R.M. 26, 121, 237 Flowerdew, ]. IS, 26 Coupland,]. 194 Forbes, K. 124, 141 Coupland, N. 1, 214 Franck, D. 37, 38, 39 Craig, R. 159, 162, 239 Fraser, B. 24, 26, 144, 145, 151, 153, Crespo, E. 239 154, 160, 167, 172, 182, 213, 232 Cuff, E.C. 96 Fredin, E. 87 Culpeper,]. 156-7, 159, 186, 189, Frege, G. 6 238 French, ].W. 129 Cummings, M. 226 Fukushima, S. 160 Curc6, C. 62, 63, 65, 207-8, 224 Fussell, S. 14 7 Czyzewski, M. 101-2 Gallardo Pauls, B. 99, 103, 106, 236, Dahl, M. 217 237 Dascal, M. 1, 27, 30, 231 Garda, C. 22, 34, 61, 63, 64, 75, Davidson, D. 8 149, 179, 180-1, 184-S, 193, de Erlich, F. 187 209-10, 211, 222, 232 de Fina, A. 63, 207-8, 224, 234 Garcia Gomez, A. 115, 121-2, 138, de Kadt, E. 238 139-40 de los Heros, S. 71, 208-9, 210 Gardiner, A. 7 de Saussure, F. 20 Garfinkel, H. 80, 81, 114 del Saz Rubio, M. 239 Gass, S. S Diaz Perez, F.]. 62, 64, 178 Geertz, C. 192 Dillon, G.L. 151, 176 Geis, M.L. 40 Drew, P. 85, 87, 96, 98, 100 Giddens, A. 236 Duncan, S. 108, 236 Gille,]. 130 Duranti, A. 15, 175, 218-19, 231-2 Gilman, A. 2, 43 Glenn, P.]. 104, lOS, 236 Edelsky, C. 125 Godard, D. 99 Eisenstein, M. 226 Goffman, E. 124, 125, 127, 154, Edmondson, W. 31, 148 159, 234-5, 238 Edwards, ].A. 220 Golato, A. 226 Eelen, G. 143, 149, 151, 152, 153, Gonzalez Mangas, A. 29, 232 163 Goodwin, C. 15, 87, 92, 218, 231-2, Eerdmans, S.L. 234 235, 236 Ericsson, K.A. 224 Gordon, D. 27 Escandell Vidal, V. 2, 151, 170, 171, Goutsos, D. 139 239, 240 Graddol, D. 85 Granato, L. 175-6, 189 Fairclough, N. 57 Greatbatch, D. 87, 92, 96, 108, 110 Fanshel, D. 26, 37 Gregori Signes, C. 115, 119-21, 124, Fant, L. 83, 96, 112-13, 114, 115, 132, 141 117, 119, 120, 121, 125, 130-2, Grewendorf, G. 12, 231 132, 133, 139, 141, 142, 173-4, Grice, P. 2, 6, 27, 29, 145-8, 235 175-6, 189, 201-3, 239 Grindsted, A. 112, 113-14, 131, 132, Fasold, R. 1, 216 133-S, 142 Fehr, B.]. 234 Gu, Y. 144, 148, 152-3, 160 276 Author Index

Guariglia, 0. 26, 41, 48-50 Janney, R. 144, 145, 162-3, 187 Gumperz, ].]. 56, 87, 198 Jaworski, A. 1, 214 Gurruchaga, M.L. 115-17 Jeanneret, R. 122 Jefferson, G. 56, 79, 80, 81, 84, 86, Haberland, H. 1 92, 104, lOS, 141, 219, 235, 236 Habermas, J. 48 Johnston, K. 226, 227 Haggkvist, c. 121, 125, 130-2, 138-9, 140-1, 142 Kannetzky, F. 21, 26 Halliday, M.A.K. S 7 Kasher, A. 1, 148, 238 Hamel, E. 23 7 Kasper, G. S, 31, 73, 143, 144, 145, Hamilton, V. 221 154, 160, 217, 222-3, 225, 226, Hammersley, M. 85, 86, 91, 111, 232 236 Keck, G. 7 Hardin, K.J. 62, 75, 206-7, 211, 234, Keenan, E. 14 7 239 Kelly, A. 87 Harnish, R.M. 12, 26, 53 Kempson, R. 8 Harris, S. 159, 237 Kerbrat -Orecchioni, C. 161-2, Hartford, B. 226 171-2, 190 Haslett, B. 110-11 Kesselheim, W. 236 Hassan, T. 34 Kingwell, M. 238 Haverkate, H. 26, 33, 36, 41-8, 57, Kjaerbeck, S. 84, 114-15, 141 58, 143-4, 166-8, 171, 185, 233, Knoblauch, H. 129 239 Koike, D. 26, 61, 84, 168, 179-80, Hayashi, T. 159 208, 234, 239 Heath, C. 87 Koschmieder, E. 7 Held, G. 158 Krauss, R. 147 Herbert, R.K. 183 Kuiper, K. 160 Heritage,]. 81-2, 83, 84, 87, 90, 92, 98, 99-100, 101, 104, lOS, 108, Labov, W. 2, 26, 37, 214-15, 216 110, 219, 234-S Lachenicht, L. 238 Hernandez Flores, N. 63, 161, 172, Lakoff, R. 2, 27, 144, 148, 148-9, 188, 189 179, 185 Hernandez Paricio, F. 54 Lampert, M.D. 220 Herrero Moreno, G. 41, 48, 52-S Le Pair, R. 34, 56, 61, 64, 178, 225, 239 Hickey, L. 1, 3, 71, 165, 171, 186 Lee, ].R.E. 109 Hill, B. 160 Leech, G. 1, 15, 24, 30, 36, 44, 51, Hinkel, E. 227 144, 145, 147, 148, 149-52, 166, Hjelmquist, E. 96 170, 176, 185, 190, 232 Hofstede, G. 112 Lerner, G.H. 125 Holdcroft, D. 12 Levenston, E. 57, 225 Holiday, A. 8 Levinson, S. 1, 3, 7, 13, 16, 30, 37, Holmes, J. 72, 158, 161, 182, 208, SS-6, 88, 89, 101, 104, 118, 125, 226, 238 127, 144, 145, 148, 154-6, 156-7, Holtgraves, T. 103, 104, 107, 109, 161, 168, 171-2, 174, 177, 178, 110, 158 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, Hopper, R. 85, 88, 109, 110, 235 189, 190, 195, 198, 206, 207, House, J. S, 61, 64, 73, 149, 232, 232, 233, 237, 238 234 Lindstrom, A. 100 Hughes, ].A. 86, 87, 97 Linell, P. 38, 39-40, 87, 232, 233 Hutchby, I. 85, 234 Lipski, J. 58 Hymes, D. 2, 56, 147, 192, 241 Lorenzo, N. 63, 65, 66-8, 71, 183 Loveday, L. 14 7-8 Ide, S. 152, 157, 160 Luke, K.K. 99 Irving, J. 238 Lynch, M. 240 Author Index 277

Madariaga, S. 175 Pilleux, M. 74-6, 234 Malinowski, B. 238 Pino, C. 70, 71, 100, 135-7 Manes,]. 72 Placencia, M.E. 12, 17, 26, 28, 32, Mao, L. 159, 160 33, 38, 39, 61, 62, 68-9, 71, Markee, N. 79, 110 72-3, 94, 99, 100, 102, 104, 107, Markova, I. 233 125-7, 142, 159, 161, 189, 197-9, Marquez Reiter, R. 26, 27, 29, 32, 203-4, 211, 232, 237, 240 34, 35, 45, 61, 62, 63, 64-5, 68, Pomerantz, A. 70, 89, 90, 100, 101, 71, 83, 125, 143, 151, 158, 161, 135, 137, 234, 236 172, 178, 181-2, 182-3, 193, Porter, R.E. 112 199-201, 203-4, 211, 220, 222, Potter, ]. 83 223, 224, 234, 238, 239, 240 Pratt, M.L. 20, 232-3 Marriott, H.E. 87 Psathas, G. 81 Martin Rojo, L. 186, 187 Puga Larrain, ]. 62, 170, 205-6, 207, Martinich, A. 12, 25 211, 239 Matsumoto, Y. 152, 160 Py, B. 122 Maynard, D.W. 234 McHoul, A. 87 Raga Gimeno, F. 115, 122-3, 141 McLaughlin, M. 158 Rail, M. 19, 28, 74, 75, 76 Mey, ]. 1, 8 Ramirez Saborio, L. 236 Milroy,]. 216 Rapley, M. 87 Mills, S. 238 Rasmussen, G. 100 Mitchell, C. 226 Reyes, G. 1 Moerman, M. 88 Rhodes, R. 158 Moeschler, ]. 54 Rintell, E. 61, 179, 223, 226 Moreno Cabrera, ].C. 53 Roger, D. 110 Morris, C. 1 Rommetveit, R. 175 Moyer, M.G. 115, 123-4 Rosaldo, M.Z. 19, 30 Muelder Eaton, M. 25 Rose, K. 225-6, 227 Mullany, L. 238 Ruiz de Zarobe, L. 63, 185-6 Musselman Shank, R. 124-5, 237 Rundstrom, B. 159 Ruzickova, E. 28, 71, 183 Neu,]. 5 Nieto Garda, J.M. 236 Sacks, H. 56, 79, 80, 81-2, 86, 92, Nieto y Otero, M.]. 187-8 93, 94-5, 98, 99, 104, 105, 106, Nino-Murcia, M. 57-8 112, 114, 116, 117, 118, 126, Nolen, W. 144, 153, 154, 172 129, 141, 234-5, 235-6, 236 Nwoye, 0. 238 Sadock, ]. 5 Samovar, L.A. 112 Ochs,E. 85,144,219 Sanchez Lanza, C. 28, 57, 58-60, O'Driscoll,]. 160-1 189, 234 Olshtain, E. 31, 57, 73, 182, 223, Sanchez Lopez, E. 115, 122-3, 141 232 Sanders, R. 148 Ono, R. 227 Santamaria Garcia, C. 54-5, 135, Oppenheim, A. 223 137-8, 141 Orestri:im, B. 119 Saville-Troike, M. 216, 228 Ortega Olivares,]. 41, 46, 50-1, 233 Sbisa, M. 6 Osgood, C.E. 223 Schegloff, E.A. 38, 56, 79, 80, 81, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 97-8, 99, Pan, Y. 149, 160 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, Parret, H. 6 108, 119, 126, 128, 129, 234, Pavlidou, T.S. 99 235, 236, 237 Penman, R. 159 Schieffelin, B. 144 Philipsen, G. 241 Schiffrin, D. 1, 5 278 Author Index

Schlick, M. 8 Toscano Mateus, H. 58 Schrader-Kniffki, M. 19, 63, 68, Tracy, K. 89, 238 69-70, 230, 240 Tracy, S. 238 Schunk, D. 224 Trenchs, M. 73 Scollon, R. 132, 160, 180, 238 Trosborg, A. 182 Scallon, S. 132, 160, 180, 238 Turnbull, W. 90, 158, 226 Searle, J.R. 2, 5-6, 6, 14, 15, 16-36, Turner, K. 151, 159 42, 44, 45, 48, 74, 109, 231, 232, Tus6n Valls, A. 1, 237, 239 233, 240 Serrano Montesinos, M.j. 169 Valdes, G. 70, 71, 100, 135-7 Sharrock, W. W. 96 Valeiras Visa,]. 125, 129-30, 142 Sheffer, H. 56, 233 van Dijk, T. 57 Shimanoff, S. 159 van Rees, M.A. 40-1, 91 Siebel, M. 25 Varghese, M. 226 Sieber,]. 229, 230 Vazquez Orta, I. 34, 61, 64, 68, 161, Sifianou, M. 99, 100, 151, 161, 236 177-8, 225 Silverman, D. 97, 234, 235-6, 236, Ventola, E. 96 241 Verschueren,]. 2, 3, 5, 6, 26 Simon, H.A. 224 Villemoes, A. 239-40 Sinclair,]. McH. 26, 121, 237 Vincent, j.M. 26 Slugoski, B. 158 Smith-Hefner, N. 149 Wagner, ]. 80, 100 Smithson, ]. 88, 90 Walker, j.D.B. 12 Snow, C. 144 Warnock, G.]. 12 Speer, S.A. 83, 217, 240 Warren, M. 211 Spencer-Oatey, H. 65, 144, 145, 152, Watts, R. 143, 158, 238, 239 163-4, 175 Weinbach, L. 73, 232 Sperber, D. 29 Weizman, E. 35-6, 46 Spradley, J. 216, 241 Wells, G. 96 Stokoe, E. 88, 90 Wenger, E. 192 Strecker, I. 238 Werkhofer, K. 143, 158 Streeck, j. 37, 38, 40 West, C. 117 Stubbe, M. 238 Wetherell, M. 83 Stubbs, M. 7, 217 Wierzbicka, A. 26, 30, 148, 160, Svenneving, j. 236 161, 240 Swain, M. 179 Wilson, D. 29 Swingewood, A. 80, 111 Wittgenstein, L. 6-7, 37 Wolfram, W. 216 Taleghani-Nikazm, C. 100 Wolfson, N. 70, 72, 217, 241 Tan Gek Lin, D. 160 Wooffitt, R. 234 Tannen, D. 117, 149, 157, 179, 186, Wooton, A.J. 88, 89, 109 218 Wunderlich, D. 48, 53 Taylor, T. 7, 91 ten Have, P. 83, 87, 234, 240 Yanez, R.H. 70, 71, 137, 234 Thomas,]. 7, 15, 18, 23-4, 31, 36, Yang, J.M. 158 96, 99, 104, 120, 143, 145, 147, Yepez, L.M. 12, 71, 72-3, 100 151, 192, 193-4, 213 Yuan, Y. 226 Thomason, W. 110 Thuren, B.M. 113, 175 Zahn, C. 103-4 Tokunaga, M. 160 Zimmerman, D. 83, 87, 117, 234 Subject Index

abrupt topic shifts 140 compliment responses 70, 135-7 absolute politeness 150 components of speech acts accountability 81, 102 Austin 12 address (forms of) 152 Searle 17 adjacency pairs 92-4 condensed notes 216 advertising 206-7 conditions for speech acts 21-4 affiliation 173-S confidentiality 229-30 agreeing responses 137-8 consent 215, 218-19, 229 agreement (maxim) 150 constitutive rules 19, 21 alerters 31-2, 66-7 constructivist/interpretative view of allocutionary acts 42-4 reality 214 allocutionary devices 43, 44 context 89-90 Anglo-American School of Pragmatics conventional indirectness 27-9, 3 33-S, 159, 199-201 answering machine messages conventional norms 240 129-30 conventionality 18-19 apologies 23-4, 182-3 conversation analysis (CA) 3, 4, 41, CCSARP 31-6 79-142 approbation (maxim) 150 incorporation by Hispanists assertives 24, 53, 74-6 111-42; organization of association rights 164 laughter 132-S; overall audio-recordings 82-6, 217-20 organization of conversation authority scale 150-1 125-32; preference autonomy 173-S organization 135-8; topic organization 138-41; turn­ back-channelling 113 taking 112-25 balance principle 152 main contributions 91-107; behabitives 14-15 organization of laughter business negotiations 104-S; overall organization of conversation analysis 114, talk 97-100; preference 133-S organization 100-4; sociopragmatic variation 201-3 sequential organization of talk 92-4; topic organization camaraderie 149 105-7; turn-taking 94-6 classification of speech acts in origins 80-2 Spanish 48-50 politeness in informal conversations closings lOS 188-9 service encounters 204 relevance for sociopragmatics telephone calls 98-9, 126-7, 129 107-11 cognitive pragmatics 2, 3 variation in organization of collaborative participation 125 conversation 201-4 commands S7-8 working methodology 82-91; data commissives 14-15, 24, 25 analysis 87-91; data source studies on 74-6 and data collection and competitive participation 125 transcription 82-7 complaints 73-4 conversation maxim view of compliments 70-3, 183-4, 208-9 politeness 144, 148-53

279 280 Subject Index conversational contract view of rating scales 223-4 politeness 144-5, 153-4 open role plays 221, 223 conversational implicature 147 verbal reports 224-S conversational units 202-3 emancipatory view of reality 214 cooperative dissentives 54 emotive communication view of Cooperative Principle (CP) 145-8, politeness 144-5, 162-3 151, 154 enumeraci6n temcitica 140-1 cortesia 164-6 equity rights 164 cost/benefit scale 150 essential rules 23 critical realism 214 ethics 229-30 Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization ethnography 240-1 Patterns project (CCSARP) 31-6 ethnomethodology 80-1, 111 cross-cultural variation 193 exercitives 14-15 cultural norms 193-7, 240 expanded accounts 216 customary norms 240 explicit performatives 11 expositives 14-15 data collection expressibility, principle of 20-1 observation 215-17 expressives 24 observer-only role 215-16 dissentive 53 participant-as-observer role pragmalinguistic studies 59-60 215-16 sociopragmatic studies 70-4 declarations 24 external modification 32 deference 149, 179, 211 deference politeness strategies 180-1 face defocalizing expressions 46-7, 168 concept of 154-5, 159-60 deictic strategies 168 management of 163-4 dialectology 191 quality face 163-4 diminutives 32 social identity face 163-4 direction of fit 25 face needs 17 5-6 directives 24, 27 face-saving view of politeness 144-5, pragmalinguistic studies 57-9 154-62, 164; criticisms of sociopragmatic studies 60-70 157-62 directness 67 Hispanic empirical studies 177-88; levels of 33-5 political discourse 186-8; see also indirectness service encounters 189; disagreement responses 137-8 speech act realization 177-86 disarmers 32 impoliteness 156-7 discernment politeness 160 reappraisals by Hispanists 171-2 discourse analysis, and speech act face-enhancing acts 161 theory 36-41 face-threatening acts (FTAs) 155-6 discourse completion tests (DCTs) felicity conditions 9-10 225-7 field notes 215-17 discourse markers 50-1 fieldwork journals 216 discourse units 114-15 focalizing expressions 46-7, 168 dispreferred responses 54 dissentive expressives 53 gender dissentives 52-S and laughter 135 distribution rule 97 and requests 67 and turn-taking 117, 120 elicited data 220-8 generosity (maxim) 152 closed (structured) role plays 221, gossip talk 139-40 223 greeting sequence 98 discourse completion tests 225-7 greetings 59-60 multiple-choice questionnaires group discussions 130-2 227-8 group membership 173-4 Subject Index 281 head acts 31-2 indirectness scale 150 hearer, role of 38 informal conversations 188-9 hedged performatives 167 informed consent 229 hierarchy of strategies 155-6, 159 initiative/response patterns 113 Hispanists insertion sequences 93 empirical politeness studies institutional talk 87 177-89; informal conversations instructions 68-9 188-9; political discourse intensification 169 186-8; service encounters intentionality 18, 36--7 189; speech act realization interlanguage studies 56 from face-saving view 177-86 internal modification 32 perspectives on politeness 164-76; interpretation acts 42 alternative models by interpretative/constructivist view of Hispanists 172--6; reality 214 pragrnalinguistic views interruptions 117-19 166-71; reappraisals of variation and interruptive overlap face-saving approach 171-2 202-3 uptake of speech act theory 6, intra-cultural variation 193 41-77; empirical studies intuition (use of) 91 55-76; theoretical invitations 58-9, 184-6 developments 41-55 work incorporating CA analytical joking exchanges 133-5 concepts 111-42; organization see also laughter of laughter 132-5; overall organization of talk 125-32; language choice 123 preference organization language games 6--7 135-8; topic organization laughter 135, 142, 203 138--41; turn-taking 112-25 organization of 104-5, 132-5 how-are-you sequence 98 leave-taking 59-60 hyper-topics 140 lexical strategies 168 linguistic communication acts 42 identification-recognition sequence Iimao 152-3 97-8 locutionary acts 12-14, 15, 16-18 identity 175-6 logical positivism 8 illocutionary acts 12-14, 15, 16-18 illocutionary forces, classification of maxims of conversation 281 14-15 conversation maxim view of illocutionary point/purpose 25, politeness 144, 148-53 232 Grice 145-8 immediacy 114 quality 146-7 imperatives 30 quantity 146-7 implicit performatives 11 manner 146-7 impolite speech acts 167 relation 146-7 impoliteness meaning in interaction 192 face-saving view 156-7 metapragmatic 217, 226, 227 political discourse 186-8 minimal responses 39 see also politeness mitigating metalinguistic utterances impositives 44-6, 57-8 167 indexicality 81 mitigating politeness 171-2 indirectness 33-5, 149-50, 159 mitigation 167-70 directness-indirectness pole 45-6 requests 65-6 Searle and indirect speech acts semantic mitigation 167 26-30 sociopragmatic variation 205-6 sociopragmatic variation 199-201, modesty (maxim) 150 211 mood 10-11 282 Subject Index multiple-choice questionnaires be polite 148-9 (MCQs) 227-8 classification of politeness models 144-64; conversation maxim naive realism 214 view 144, 148-53; natural discourse 214-20 conversational contract view field notes 215-17 144-5, 153-4; emotive recording and transcribing 217-20 communication view 144-5, naturally occurring interactions 82-3 162-3; face-saving view negation 168 144-5, 154-62, 164; rapport negative face 154, 160, 162 management view 144-5, negative politeness 156, 159, 162 163-4 negotiations see business negotiations deference 180 non-conventional indirectness 29, disinterested politeness 171 33, 35, 45-6, 159 discernment politeness 160 non-impolite speech acts 167 enhancing politeness 171-2 non-interruptive overlap 202-3 functions of politeness: non-polite speech acts 166-7 enhancement; mitigation; norms 193-7, 240 reparation; Hispanic empirical studies 177-89; informal obligations, rights and 153 conversations 188-9; political observation 215-17 discourse 186-8; service use of two observers working encounters 189; speech act independently 228 realization 177-86 observer-only role 215-16 Hispanic politeness 164-76; observer's paradox 214-15, 216-17 alternative models by offers 186 Hispanists 172-6; opacity [pragmatic] 35-6, 46 pragmalinguistic views open (unstructured) role plays 166-71; reappraisals of 221-3 face-saving view 171-2 openings impoliteness 156-7 service encounters 203-4 interruptions and 118-19 telephone calls 97-8, 125-6, mitigating politeness 171-2 128-9, 197-8 negative politeness 156, 159, 162 orders 46 positive politeness 156, 159, 162, organization of conversation 97-100 171 Hispanists' empirical studies relative politeness ISO 125-32, 142 self-politeness 162 variation in 201-4 social norm view of politeness 144 other-oriented principles 162 social politeness 162-3; variation overlaps 84 205-10 see also interruptions; turn-taking solidarity 180-1, 185 politeness markers 51 participant-as-observer role 215-16 Politeness Principle maxims participation maxim 124-5 Leech's maxims: Agreement 150; performatives 9-12 Approbation 150; Generosity perlocutionary acts 11, 12-14, 15, 150; Modesty 150; Sympathy 16-17 150; Tact 150 perspective 32-3 Gu's maxims: Self-denigration persuasive strategies (advertising) 152; Address 152; Tact 152; 206-7 Generosity 152; The Balance polite speech acts 166 Principle 152 politeness 3, 4, 29-30, 104, 143-90 Politeness Principle (PP) 149-52 absolute politeness 150 political discourse 186-8 be clear 148-9 polyadic sequencing 113-14 Subject Index 283 positive face 154, 160, 162 sociopragmatic studies 60-70 positive politeness 156, 159, 162, 171 sociopragmatic variation 199-201, pragmalinguistic failure 193-7 207-8 pragmalinguistic studies studies of politeness 177-82 Hispanic politeness 166-71 research methods 4, 213-30 speech acts 57-60 collecting natural discourse pragmatic failure 120-1 214-20; field notes 215-17; (pragmatic) mitigation 167-8 recording and transcribing pragmatic variation see 217-20 sociopragmatic variation elicited data 220-8; discourse pragmatics completion tests 225-7; definitions 1 multiple-choice questionnaires interdisciplinary nature of 2 227-8; rating scales 223-4; origin 1-2 role plays 221-3; verbal pre-closing devices 39, 98, 105, 129 reports 224-5 preference organization 100-4, 135-8 ethics 229-30 preparators 32 triangulation 228 preparatory rules 23 retrospective interviews 224-5 privacy (research ethics) 229-30 rights and obligations 153 see also confidentiality risk/benefit assessment 230 production questionnaires 217, 225-8 ritualized performatives 10 promises 22-3, 69-70, 74 role plays 221-3 propositional acts 16-18 rules for speech acts propositional content rules 23 essential rules 23 pseudo feedback turns 124-5 preparatory rules 23 propositional content rules 23 quantification 108 sincerity rules 23 ranking of impositions 155, 158 Searle's taxonomy of 24 rapport management 144-5, 163-4 self-affirmation 173-4, 175 identity and 17 5-6 self-denigration 152 rating scales 223-4 self-esteem 173-4 rationality 155, 157-8 self-oriented principles 162 reality, views of 214 self-politeness 162 recordings 82-6, 217-20 self-repair 10 3 redefinitions of speech acts 37 semantics 1-2 referring expressions 46-7 sequencing 16, 38 referring strategies 46-7 sequential organization of talk 92-4 reflexivity 81 service encounters 189, 198-9, regulative rules 19 203-4 reinforcing devices 46 silences 122-3 rejoinders, DCTs with 225-6 sincerity rules 23 relation, maxim of 146-7 social adequacy 170 relative politeness 150 social distance 155, 158 reluctance markers 138 scale 150-1 repair mechanisms 102-4 social norm view of politeness 144 reparation (function of politeness) social politeness 162-3 172 see also tact representatives/assertives 24 social power 155, 158 reprimands 184, 209-10 sociality rights 163-4 requests 46 sociocultural context 2 CCSARP 31-6 sociocultural pragmatics 2, 3 for permission 51-2 sociocultural view of politeness 172, pragmalinguistic studies 57-8 173-5, 188-9 284 Subject Index

informal conversations 188-9 tact 150-2, 162-3 service encounters 189 talk-in-interaction 79 sociolinguistics 191-2 see also conversation analysis sociopragmatic failure 193-7 talk shows 121-2 sociopragmatic variation 3, 4, telephone conversations 191-212 conversation analysis 86-7, defining 191-7 97-100, 125-9 studies on 197-210; conversational sociopragmatic variation 197-8 organization 201-4; politeness television advertising 206-7 205-10; speech act realization tense 10-11 197-201 tentativeness 201 sociopragmatics thanks 186 relevance of CA for 107-11 third party, effect of presence of research methods see research 158-9 methods three-sequence exchange 153 studies on speech acts 60-7 6 time, conception of 7 4 solidarity politeness strategies 180-1 topic approvals 139 speech acts 3-4, 5-77 topic contributors 140 and analysis of discourse 36-41 topic-initial elicitors 105-7 Blum-Kulka et a/.'s (1989) coding topic initiators 139 scheme for head acts 31-2; topic organization 105-7, 138-41 external modification 32; topic supporters 139-40 internal modification 32 transcription 83-6 classification of speech acts in natural data 217-20 Spanish 48-50 transition-relevance place (TRP) Hispanic empirical studies of 95 speech act realization and triangulation 228, 241 politeness 177-86 truth-conditional semantics 8 incompleteness 38-40 truth-value, manipulations of 168 origins of speech act theory 6-36; turn-allocation component 95 Austin 7-16; Searle 16-36 turn-constructional component supportive moves 31-2, 67 95 uptake of theory by Hispanists turn length 124 41-77; empirical speech act turn-taking 94-6 studies 55-76; pragmalinguistic Hispanists' empirical studies studies 57-60; sociopragmatic 112-25, 141 studies 60-76; theoretical developments 41-55 universality 147-8 variation in realization 197-201 unmentioned mentionables 105 static view of language 38 unstructured (open) role plays status 116-17 221-3 strategy hierarchy 155-6, 159 uptake 11, 13 structural functionalism 80 structured (closed) role plays 221, 223 verbal reports 224-5 summons-answer sequence 97, 98 verdictives 14-1 5 supportive moves 31-2, 67 verificationism 8 supportiveness 163 video-recordings 82-6, 217-20 sympathy (maxim) 150 syntax 1-2 want statements 33-4