Article published in:
Intercultural Pragmatics and Cultural Linguistics
Edited by Ulrike Schröder, Milene Mendes de Oliveira and Hans-Georg Wolf
[International Journal of Language and Culture 7:1] 2020
► pp. 1537
References

References

Auer, P.
(1996) On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation. Interactional studies (pp. 57–100). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D.
(1983) Where does intonation belong? Journal of Semantics, 2(2), 101–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1986) Intonation and its parts: Melody in spoken English. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Cienki, A.
(2005) Image schemas and gesture. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 421–441). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Cognitive Linguistics: Spoken language and gesture as expressions of conceptualization. In C. Müller, A. Cienki & E. Fricke et al. (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 1 (pp. 182–201). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Cienki, A., & Müller, C.
(2008) Metaphor, gesture, and thought. In R. W. Jr. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 483–501). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
(Ed.) (1996) Prosody in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Introducing interactional linguistics. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deignan, A.
(2005) Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Corpus linguistics and metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 280–294). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A.
(2012) How does ‘cognition’ matter to the analysis of talk-in-interaction? Language Sciences, 34, 746–767. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(2002) The way we think. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C.
(2007) Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 53–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J.
(1982) Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S.
(2002) Stimmenvielfalt im Diskurs. Formen der Stilisierung und Ästhetisierung in der Redewiedergabe. Gesprächsforschung. Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 3, 59–80.Google Scholar
(2005) Dichte Konstruktionen. InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures, 43, 1–30. Available at: www​.uni​-potsdam​.de​/u​/inlist​/issues​/43​/index​.htm (accessed 1 May 2018).
(2011) Interkulturelle Kommunikation aus linguistischer Perspektive. In H. J. Krumm et al. (Eds.), Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Ein internationales Handbuch (pp. 331–342). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A., & Selting, M.
(Eds.) (2005) Syntax and lexis in conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, M., Raymond, G., & Sidnell, J.
(Eds.) (2013) Conversational repair and human understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J.
(2002) Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C. E. Ford & B. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 196–224). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horst, D., Boll, F., Schmitt, C. et al.
(2014) Gesture as interactive expressive movement: Inter-affectivity in face-to-face communication. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke et al. (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 2 (pp. 2112–2125). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G.
(1979) A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptanze/declination. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 79–96). New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1992) Philosophical implications of cognitive semantics. Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 345–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kapp Silva, C.
(2013) Code-switching na comunicação intercultural entre brasileiros e alemães. Monografia em Letras, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I.
(2014) Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
König, K.
(2010) Sprachliche Kategorisierungsverfahren und subjektive Theorien über Sprache in narrativen Interviews. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 53, 31–57.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Metaphor and emotion. Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1996) Moral politics: What conservatives know that liberals don’t. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(2003 [1980]) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, S.
(2015) Creaky voice as a phonational device marking parenthetical segments in talk. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(3), 275–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M.
(2004) Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame, and guilt. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 623–636). New York, London: Guilford.Google Scholar
Mittelberg, I., & Waugh, L. R.
(2009) Metonymy first, metaphor second: A cognitive-semiotic approach to multimodal figures of thought in co-speech gesture. In C. J. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 329–355). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mondada, L.
(2013) Conversation analysis: Talk and bodily resources for the organization of social interaction. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke et al. (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 1 (pp. 218–227). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
(2014) Multimodal interaction. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke et al. (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 2 (pp. 577–589). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Müller, C.
(2004) Forms and uses of the palm up open hand: A case of a gesture family? In C. Müller & P. Posner (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics of everyday gestures (pp. 234–256). Berlin: Weidler.Google Scholar
(2013) Gestures as a medium of expression: The linguistic potential of gestures. In: C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke et al. (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 1 (pp. 202–217). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Müller, C., & Cienki, A.
(2009) Words, gestures, and beyond: Forms of multimodal metaphor in the use of spoken language. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 297–328). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J.
(1994) The frequency code underlies the sound-symbolic use of voice pitch. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols & J. J. Ohala (Eds.), Sound symbolism (pp. 325–347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, G. B.
(1996) Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Perlman, M., & Gibbs, R. W. Jr.
(2013) Sensorimotor simulation in speaking, gesturing, and understanding. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke et al. (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 1 (pp. 512–533). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A.
(1986) Extreme case formulations. A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9(2), 219–229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H.
(1992) Lectures on conversation. Volume 1 . Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1995) Lectures on conversation. Volume 2. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sandig, B., & Selting, M.
(1997) Discourse styles. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. Vol. I: Discourse as structure and process (pp. 138–156). London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, T., & Wörner, K.
(2009) EXMARaLDA – Creating, analysing and sharing spoken language corpora for pragmatic research. Pragmatics, 19, 565–582. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schröder, U.
(2015) The interplay of verbal, vocal, and visual cues in the co-construction of the experience of alterity in exchange students’ talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 81, 21–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Die kognitiv-pragmatische Dimension der kommunikativen Gattung Rap als battle . In S. Meier & K. Marx (Eds.), Pragmalinguistik und kognitive Ansätze: Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Analysen (pp. 133–155). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schröder, U., & Carneiro Mendes, M.
(2019). Unterschiede im Gebrauch und in der Funktion prosodischer Merkmale im deutschen und brasilianischen Sprechen im Kontext des Transkribierens. In T. Johnen, M. Savreda & U. Schröder Eds. Sprachgebrauch im Kontext – die deutsche Sprache im Kontakt, Vergleich und in Interaktion mit Brasilien (pp. 145-172). Stuttgart: ibidem.
Schütz, A.
(1976 [1944]) The stranger: An essay in social psychology. In A. Schütz. (edited and introduced by Arvid Brodersen), Collected papers II. Studies in social theory (pp. 91–105). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Selting, M.
(1994) Emphatic speech style – with special focus on the prosodic signalling of heightened emotive involvement in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 375–408. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) Interaktionale Stilistik: Methodologische Aspekte der Analyse. In M. Selting & B. Sandig (Eds.), Sprech- und Gesprächsstile (pp. 9–43). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Verbal, vocal, and visual practices in conversational interaction. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke et al. (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 1 (pp. 589–609). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Selting, M., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2000) Argumente für die Entwicklung einer ‘interaktionalen Linguistik’. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 1, 76–95. Available at: www​.gespraechsforschung​-ozs​.de (accessed 1 May 2018).
(Eds.) (2001) Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, F.
(2011) Cultural conceptualisations and language. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Cultural linguistics. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 473–492). London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T.
(2007) Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stivers, T.
(2008) When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, H.
(2001) The implementation of possible cognitive shifts in Japanese conversation. Complementizers as pivotal devices. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 81–109). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D.
(2007 [1989]) Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tissari, H.
(2006) Conceptualizing shame: Investigating uses of the English word shame. Selected proceedings of the 2005 symposium on new approaches in English historical lexis (HEL-LEX), Somerville, MA (pp. 143–154). Sommerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Wolf, H. G., & Polzenhagen, F.
(2006) Intercultural communication in English – Arguments for a cognitive approach to intercultural pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(3), 285–321. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) World Englishes: A cognitive sociolinguistic approach. Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 8 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar