/LING
|
Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled. |
Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) pragmatics (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística
1) Candidate: pragmatics
Is in goldstandard
1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines319 - : 3.4. Integrating pragmatics: Clements (1988, 2005 )
2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines319 - : Recently, Schmitt and Miller (2007) incorporated pragmatics into Schmitt´s (1992) original analyses in the following way:
3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines319 - : We have seen that several researchers have tried to account for ser and estar based on syntactic, semantic and pragmatic approaches. This just shows how complex it is to characterize the behavior of the two Spanish copulas. Leaving aside the controversial topic of whether the relevant distinctions are encoded in the syntax, the semantics, the pragmatics of either, the copulas or the whole predication, most of the influential proposals seem to converge on the following general picture: Predicates with ser and estar give rise to different interpretations: ser predicates are generally (but not necessarily ) associated with properties that are perceived to last, to be permanent, to be inherent while estar predicates are commonly (but not always) associated with properties that are perceived as temporary, non-inherent and easy to change. Thus, most analyses agree that ser predicates are more relaxed than estar predicates in temporal terms. Importantly, ser is seen as disconnected from the
Evaluando al candidato pragmatics:
1) predicates: 5 (*)
pragmatics
Lengua: spa
Frec: 257
Docs: 98
Nombre propio: / 257 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 1
Puntaje: 1.398 = (1 + (1+2.58496250072116) / (1+8.01122725542325)));
Candidato aceptado
Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término
(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)| pragmatics |
: Abdollahzadeh, E. (2010). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 288-297. : Adams, E. (1983). Probabilistics enthymemes. Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 283-295. : Albalat-Mascarell, A. & Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2019). Self-representation in political campaign talk: A functional metadiscourse approach to self-mentions in televised presidential debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 147, 86-99. : Albelda, M. & Estellés, M. (2018). Introduction to the special issue: Discourse approaches to evidentiality. Pragmatics and Society, 9(3), 333-339. : Albelda, M. & Estellés, M. (en prensa). Mitigation revisited. An operative and integrated definition of the pragmatic concept, its strategic values and its linguistic expression. Journal of Pragmatics. : Albelda, M. (2020). On the mitigating function of the Spanish evidential se ve que. Corpus Pragmatics, 4(1), 83-106. : Allwood, J. (1995). An Activity Based Approach to Pragmatics. Gothenbrug Papers in Theoretical Pragmatics. 76: 1- 38. Gothenburgh: University of Gothenbrug. : Alonso-Almeida, F. (2015a). On the mitigating function of modality and evidentiality. Evidence from English and Spanish medical research papers. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 33-57. : Alvarez-Cáccamo, C. & Prego-Vázquez, G. (2003). Political cross-discourse: Conversationalization, imaginary networks, and social fields in Galiza. Pragmatics, 13(1), 145-162. : Arroyo, J. (2000). Mire usted Sr. González … Personal deixis in Spanish political-electoral debate. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(1), 1-27. : Arundale, R. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9(1), 119-153. : Atlas, J. D. & Levinson, S. C. (1981). If-clefts, informativeness, and logical form. En P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 1-61). Amsterdam: Academic Press. : Auwera, J. van der (1997a). Pragmatics in the last quarter century: The case of conditional perfection. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 261-274. : Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). The telling a tale: Discourse structure and tense use in learners’ narratives. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 3, 144-161. : Bernicot, J., Volckaert-Legrier, O., Goumi, A. & Bert-Erboul, A. (2012). Forms and functions of SMS messages: A study of variations in a corpus written by adolescents. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(12), 1701-1715. : Berry, A. (1994). Spanish and American Turn-Taking Styles: A Comparative Study. Pragmatics and Language Learning. Monograph series, 5, 180-190. : Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. : Bolívar, A. (1999). The linguistic pragmatics of political pronouns in Venezuelan Spanish. En J. Verschueren (Comp.), Language and ideology. Selected papers from the 6^th International Pragmatics Conference (pp. 56-69). Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association. : Boxer, D. & Cortés-Conde, F. (1997). From bonding to biting: Conversational joking and identity display.Journal of Pragmatics,27(3), 275-294. : Briz, A. & Estellés, M. (2010). On the relationship between Attenuation, Discourse Particles and Position. En G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch & S. Schneider (Eds.), Studies in Pragmatics 9. New Approaches to Hedging (pp. 289-304). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing. : Caffi, C. (1999). On mitigation, Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 881-909. : Caffi, C. (2010). Weakening or strengthening?: A Case of Enantiosemy. En G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch & S. Schneider (Eds.), New Approaches to Hedging. Studies in Pragmatics (pp. 181-202). Bingley: Emerald. : Carrera de la Red, M. (2013). Análisis del discurso y sociopragmática histórica en un debate legal en la Cartagena de Indias del siglo XVIII. Intensificación y atenuación como recursos argumentales. Pragmática Sociocultural/Sociocultural Pragmatics, 1(2), 11-45. : Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2019). Authorial engagement in business emails. Engagement in professional genres. In C. Sancho-Guinda (Ed.), Engagement in Professional Genres (pp 48-65). Pragmatics and Beyond New Series. : Carston, R. (2002). Relevance theory and saying/implicating distinction. En L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics psycholinguistics (pp.101-125). Oxford: Blackwell. : Chien,Y. & Wexler, K. (1990). Childrens knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition, 1(3), 225-295. : Clancy, P. M., Thompson, S. A., Suzuki, R. & Tao, H. (1996). The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(3), 355-387. : Clements, J. C. (1988). The semantics and pragmatics of the Spanish : Cobb-Moore, C., Danby, S. & Farrell, A. (2009). Young children as rule markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1477-1492. : Colston, H. (2001). On necessary conditions for verbal irony comprehension. Pragmatics & Cognition, 8, 277-324. : Colston, H. (2002). Contrast and assimilation in verbal irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 111-142. : Contreras, J. (2008). Conversational silence and face in two sociocultural contexts. Pragmatics, 18(4), 707-728. : Cornish, F. (2008). How indexicals function in texts: Discourse, text, and one neo-Gricean account of indexical reference. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(6), 997-1018. : Crawford, M. (2003). Gender and humor in social context.Journal of pragmatics,35(9), 1413-1430. : Cruse, A. (2000). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press . : Cuenca, M. & Marín, M. (2012). Discourse markers and modality in spoken Catalan: The case of (és) clar. Journal of Pragmatics , 44, 2211-2225. : Cutting, J. (2015). Dingsbums und so: Beliefs about German vague language. Journal of Pragmatics, 85,108-121. : Czerwionka, L. (2012). Mitigation: The combined effects of imposition and certitude, Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1163-1182. : Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825. : Davis, B. H. & Guendouzi, J. (Eds.) (2013). Pragmatics in dementia discourse. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. : DeLancey, S. (2001). The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 369-382. : Dendale, P. & Tasmowski, L. (2001). Introduction: Evidentiality and Related Notions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 339-348. : Depraetere, I. (2017). On the pragmatics of modal verbs. Selected papers on theoretical and applied linguistics, 22, 14-26. : Dominiek, S. (2009). Psycholinguistics. En S. Dominiek, J. Ötsman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Cognition and Pragmatics (pp. 288-368). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins. : Drew, P. & Walker, T. (2009). Going too far: Complaining, escalating and disaffiliation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2400-2414. : Enfield, N. J., Stivers, T. & Levinson, S. C. (2010). Question-response sequences in conversation across ten languages: An introduction. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2615-2619. : Escandell Vidal, V. (2017). Notes for a restrictive theory of procedural meaning: Cognitive, Philosophical, and Sociopragmatic Perspectives. En R. Giora & M. Haugh (Eds.), Doing Pragmatics Interculturally (pp. 79-98). Berlín/Munich/Boston: de Gruyter. : Estellés, M. & Pons, S. (2009). Expressing digression linguistically. Do digressive markers exist? Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 931-936. : Estellés, M. (2020). The evolution of parliamentary debates in light of the evolution of evidentials. Al parecer and por lo visto in 40 years of parliamentary proceedings from Spain. Corpus Pragmatics, 1-24. : Fernández, J. (2017). The language functions of tipo in Argentine vernacular. Journal of Pragmatics, 114, 87-103. : Flores-Ferrán, N. (2010). An examination of mitigation strategies used in Spanish psychotherapeutic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1964-1981. : Fortanet, I. (2004). Enhancing the speaker-audience relationship in academic lectures. In P. Garcés, R. Gómez, L. Fernández & M. Padilla (Eds.), Current trends in intercultural cognitive and social pragmatics (pp. 83-96). Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla. : Fraser, B. (1980). Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 4, 341-350. : Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, XIV, 219-236. : Fuertes-Olivera, P., Velasco-Sacristán, M., Arribas-Baño, A. & Samaniego Fernández, E. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1291-1307. : GIVON, T. (1989) Mind, code and context: Essays in pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. : Gallardo, S. (2005a). Pragmatic support of medical recommendations in popularization texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(6), 813-835. : García-Ramón, A. (2018a). Indexing epistemic incongruence: Uy as a formal sign of disagreement in agreement sequences in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 131, 1-17. : Gelabert-Desnoyer, J. (2008). Not so impersonal: Intentionality in the use of pronoun uno in contemporary Spanish political discourse. Pragmatics, 18(3), 407-424. : Gennari, S. (2002). Spanish past and future tenses: Less (semantics) is more. En J. Gutiérrez-Rexach (Ed.), From words to discourse: Trends in Spanish semantics and pragmatics (pp. 21-36). Ámsterdam: Elsevier. : Gibbs, R. (2002). A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 457-486. : Giora, R. & Fein, O. (1999). On understandig familiar and less familiar figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(12), 1601-1618. : Giora, R. (2001). Literal vs. figurative language. Different or equal? Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 240-261. : Greco, P. (2018). Evidentiality and epistemic modality in witness testimony in the context of Italian criminal trials.Journal of Pragmatics, 128, 128-136. : Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. En S. Davis (Ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 305-315). Nueva York: Oxford University Press. : Groenendijk, J. A. & Stokhof, M. J. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Tesis de doctorado, Universidad de Ámsterdam, Ámsterdam, Holanda. : Grundy, P. (2008). Doing pragmatics. London: Hodder Education. : Gullberg, M. & Holmqvist, K. (1999). Keeping an eye on gestures. Visual perception of gestures in face-to-face communication. Pragmatics & Cognition, 7, 35-63. : Habermas, J. (1998). On the pragmatics of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. : Hardwood, N. (2005a). Nowhere has anyone attempted ... In this article I aim to do just that. A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1207-1231. : Harwood, N. (2009). An interview-based study of the functions of citations in academic writing across two disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(3), 497-518. : Hay, J. (2001). The pragmatics of humor support. Humor - International Journal of Humor Research, 14(1), 55-82 [en línea]. Disponible en: [109]https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.14.1.55. : Heinemann, T. & Traverso, V. (2009). Complaining in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2381-2384. : Heinz, B. (2003). Backchannel responses as strategic responses in bilingual speakers’ conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(7), 1113-1142. : Hernández Flores, N. (2013). Actividad de imagen. Caracterización y tipología en la interacción comunicativa. Pragmática Sociocultural/Sociocultural Pragmatics, 1(2), 1-24. : Hernández-Flores, N. (2008). Politeness and other types of facework: Communicative and social meaning in a television panel discussion. Pragmatics, 18(4) 577-603. : Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 345-365. : Horn, L. (2003). Implicature. En L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 3-28). Oxford: Blackwell. : Horn, L. R. (2000). From if to iff: Conditional perfection as pragmatic strengthening. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 289-326. : Hu, G. & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and-Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795-2809. : Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics (Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press. : Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437455. : Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112. : Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29. : Ifantidou, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(9), 1325-1353. : Ishida, H. (2006). Learners’ perception and interpretation of contextualization cues in spontaneous Japanese conversation: Back-channel cue Uun. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(11), 1943-1981. : Israeli, A. (1997). Semantics and pragmatics of the reflexive verbs in Russian. Slavistische Beiträge. München: Verlag Otto Sagner. : Jefferson, G. & Lee, J. R. E. (1981). The rejection of advice: Managing the problematic convergence of a troubles-telling and a service encounter. Journal of Pragmatics, 5(5), 399-422. [164]https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(81)90026-6 : Jefferson, G. (2002). Is no an acknowledgment token? Comparing American and British uses of (+)/(−) tokens. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10-11), 1345-1383. [162]https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00067-X : Jucker, A. H. & Taavitsainen, I. (2013). English Historical pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. : Kachru, B. (1981). The pragmatics of non-native varieties of English. En L. Smith (Ed.), English for cross-cultural communication (pp. 5-39). London: Macmillan. : Kamio, A. (1994). The theory of territory of information: The case of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(1), 67-100. [166]https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90047-7 : Kita, S. & Ide, S. (2007). Nodding, aizuchi, and final particles in Japanese conversation: How conversation reflects the ideology of communication and social relationships. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(7), 1242-1254. : Kitagawa, C. & Lehrer, A. (1990). Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 739-759. : Kohnen, T. (2007). Text types and the methodology of diachronic speech act analysis. En S. M. Fitzmaurice & I. Taavitsainen (Eds.), Methods in historical pragmatics (pp. 139-166). Berlín-Nueva York: Mouton de Gruyter. : Kolyaseva, A. (2018). The new Russian quotative tipa: Pragmatic scope and functions. Journal of Pragmatics, 128, 82-97. : Kotthoff, H. (2006). Gender and humor: The state of the art.Journal of pragmatics,38(1), 4-25. : Kress, G. (1989). History and language: Towards a social account of language change. Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 445-66. : Kronmüller, E. & Barr, D. J. (2007). Perspective-free pragmatics: Broken precedents and the recovery-from-preemption hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(3), 436-455. : Laforest, M. (2009). Complaining in front of a witness: Aspects of blaming others for their behavior in multi-party family interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2452-2464. : Lazard, G. (2001). On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 359-367. : Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. : Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. : Lorenzo-Dus, N. & Bou-Franch, P. (2013). A cross-cultural investigation of email communication in Peninsular Spanish and British English: The role of (in) formality and (in) directness. Pragmatics and Society, 4(1), 1-25. : Maalej, Z. (2013). Framing and manipulation of person deixis in Hosni Mubarak’s last three speeches: A cognitive-pragmatic approach. Pragmatics, 23(4), 633-659. : Maitland, K. & Wilson, J. (1987). Pronominal selection and ideological conflict. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(4), 495-512. : Martinovski, B. (2006). A framework for the analysis of mitigation in courts: Toward a theory of mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(12), 2065-2086. [173]https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.08.006 : Menéndez, S. M. (2017b). Agentivity: Verbs classification from a discursive point of view. Ponencia presentada en el XV International Conference of the International Pragmatics Association. International Pragmatics Association, Belfast, Irlanda. : Mihatsch, W. (2010). The diachrony of rounders and adaptors: Approximation and unidirectional change. En G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch & S. Schneider (Eds.), New Approaches to Hedging. Studies in Pragmatics 9 (pp. 93-122). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing. : Montero-Fleta, B., Montesinos-López, A., Pérez-Sabater, C. & Turney, E. (2009). Computer mediated communication and informalization of discourse: The influence of culture and subject matter. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(4), 770-779. : Morris, T. (1998). Topicity vs. thematicity: Topic prominence in impromptu Spanish discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 29, 93-203. : Mur Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3068-3079. : Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 135. : Myers, G. (1992). "In this text we report..." Speech acts and scientific facts. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 295-313. : Myers, G. A. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35. : Newton, K. (1995) "Metacognition and consciousness" en Pragmatics & Cognition Vol. 3(2), John Benjamins Publishing Co. (pp. 285-297). : Noveck, I. (2018). Experimental pragmatics: The making of a cognitive science. Cambridge University Press. : Noveck, I. A. & Reboul, A. (2008). Experimental pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 425-431. : Noveck, I. A. & Sperber, D. (2004). Experimental pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. : Nuyts, J. (2001). Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 383-400. : Oliveira, S. M. (2013). Address in computer-mediated communication. In S. C. Herring, D. Stein & T. Virtanen (Eds.). Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication (pp. 291-314). Berlin/Boston: Gruyter Mouton. : Overstreet, M. (2011). Vagueness and hedging. En G. Andersen & K. Aijmer (Eds.), Pragmatics of Society (pp. 293-317). Berlín, De Gruyter. : O’Keefe, A., Clancy, B. & Adolphs, S. (2011). Introducing pragmatics in use. London: Routledge. : Panther, K. & Thornburg, L. (1997). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755-769. : Papafragou, A. & Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics pragmatics interface. Cognition, 86(3), 253-282. : Parodi, G., Julio, C., Nadal, L. & Burdiles, G. (2018). Always look back: Eye movements as a reflection of anaphoric encapsulation in Spanish while reading the neuter pronoun ello. Journal of Pragmatics, 132, 47-58. : París, L. (2006). Implicating and focusing on underspecifed lexical information. En K. von Heusinger & K. Turner (Eds.), When semantics meets pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier. : Plungian, V. (2001). The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 349-357. : Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. En P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223-255). New York: Academic Press. : Pérez Hernández, L. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2002). Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirect directive speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 259-284. : Qin, W. & Uccelli, P. (2019). Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 22-39. : Ravelli, L. J. (1988). Grammatical metaphor. An initial analysis. En E. Steiner & R. Veltman (Eds.), Pragmatics, discourse and text. Some systemically-inspired approaches (pp. 133-147). Londres: Pinter Publishers. : Reilly, J., Zamora, A. & McGivern, T. (2005). Acquiring perspective in English: The development of stance. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 185-208. : Reinhart, T. (1982). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27, 53-94. : Ruiz de Mendoza, F. & Baicchi, A. (2007). Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes & L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects (pp. 95-128). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. : Sadock, J. M. (1981). Almost. En Peter COLE (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 257-272). Nueva York: Academic Press. : Santibáñez, C. (2010). Metaphors and argumentation: The case of Chilean parliamentarian media participation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(4), 973-989. : Sbisà, M. (2001). Illocutionary force and degrees of strength in language use. Journal of Pragmatics , 33, 1791-1814. : Schwenter, S. (1999). Exclusivity and conditional marker form I: Adversative contexts. En S. Schwenter (Ed.), Pragmatics of Conditional Marking: Implicature, Scalarity and Exclusivity (pp. 117-230). Nueva York: Garland Pub. : Schwenter, S. (1999). Pragmatics of conditional marking. Nueva York: Garland. : Shaw, P. & Vassileva, I. (2009). Co-evolving academic rhetoric across culture; Britain, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany in the 20^th century. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(2), 290-305. : Sidnell, J. (2012). Who knows best? Evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry in conversation. Pragmatics and Society, 3(2), 294-320. : Sifianou, M. (2012). Disagreements, face and politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1554-1564. : Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, Modularity and Mind-reading. Mind and Language, 17, 3-23. : Spooren, W. & Sanders, T. (2008). The acquisition order of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 40(12), 2003-2026. : Stein, N. (1982). The definition of a story. Journal of pragmatics North-holland publishing company, 6, 487-507. : Tadros, A. (1993). The pragmatics of text averral and attribution in academic texts. En M. Hoey (Ed.), Data, Description, Discourse. Londres: Harper Collins. : Tao, H. & Thompson, S. A. (1991). English backchannels in Mandarin conversations: A case study of superstratum pragmatic ‘interference’. Journal of Pragmatics, 16(3), 209-223. : Thaler, V. (2012). Mitigation as modification of illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 907-919. : Tian, Y. & Breheny, R. E. (2018). Pragmatics and negative sentence processing. Oxford University Press. : Traugott, E. C. (2019). Whither historical pragmatics? A cognitively-oriented perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 25-30. : Uclés, G. (2020). Epistemic (a)Symmetries and Mitigation in the Description of Conversational Markers: The Case of Spanish ‘¿no?’ Corpus Pragmatics, 4(1), 107-131. [200]https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-019-00068-7 : Uclés, G. (en prensa). Mitigation and boosting as face-protection functions. Journal of Pragmatics. : Urban, G. (1988). The pronominal pragmatics of nuclear war discourse. Multilingua, 7(1-2), 67-93. : Van Dijk, T. (1981). Sentence topic and discourse topic. En T. van Dijk, Studies in the pragmatics of discourse (pp. 177-193). París: Mouton. : Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. Londres: Edward Arnold. : Verstraete, J. C. (2001). Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(10), 1505-1528. : Verstraete, J. C. (2005). Scalar quantity implicatures and the interpretation of modality. Problems in the deontic domain. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(9), 1401-1418. : Vine, B. (2009). Directives at work: Exploring the contextual complexity of workplace directives. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1395-1405. : Vázquez Carranza, A. (2017). Some uses of ‘no’ in Spanish talk-in-interactions. International Review of Pragmatics, 9, 1-24. : Ward, N. & Tsukahara, W. (2000) Prosodic features which cue Back-Channel responses in English and Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language Studies, 32(8), 1177-1207. : Ward, N. (2006). Non-Lexical conversational sounds in American English. Pragmatics and Cognition, 14(1), 113-184. : White, P. (2002). Appraisal: The language of evaluation and stance. En J. Verschueren, J. Östman, J. Blommaert & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 1-27). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. : White, P. R. R. (2011). Appraisal. En J. Zienkowski, J. O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Discursive pragmatics (pp. 14-36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. : Whitt, R. (2011). (Inter)Subjectivity and evidential perception verbs in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 347-360. : Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (2002). Relevance theory. En L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics Psycholinguistics (pp. 34-78). Oxford: Blackwell. : Wodak, R. (1995). Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. En J. O. Varscheueren, J-O Östman & J. Blommart (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 204-210). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins. : Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and critical discourse analysis. A cross-disciplinary enquiry. Pragmatics & Cognition, 15(1), 203-225. : Young, R. (1996). Intercultural communication: Pragmatics, genealogy, deconstruction. Clevedon: Multilingual Maters Ltd. : Ziegeler, D. (2000). What almost can reveal about counterfactual inferences. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1743-1776. : Ziegeler, D. (2010). Running the gauntlet on the approximatives debate: A response to recent challenges. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 681-704. : Zondervan, A. (2009). Experiments on QUD and focus as a contextual constraint on scalar implicature calculation. En U. Sauerland & K. Yatsushiro (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory (pp. 94-112). Houndmills (Basingstoke): Palgrave Macmillan. : Zupnik, Y. (1994). A pragmatic analysis of the use of person deixis in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 339-383. : de Swart, H. E. (2007). A cross-linguistic discourse analysis of the perfect. Journal of pragmatics, 39(12), 2273-2307. : van Dijk, T. (1977 Text and context. Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse, London: Longman. |