Critical Discourse Analysis and the Sociopragramatic

Critical Discourse Analysis and Inter-culturalism and Social Pragmatism

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................................3
Critical Discourse Analysis and the Sociopragramatic................................................................4
Pragmatism, CDA and other linguistic elements.........................................................................5
Intercultural and discourse analysis.............................................................................................6
Politeness in discourse analysis...................................................................................................6
CDA and the cooperative principle..............................................................................................8
FINDINGS.......................................................................................................................................9
Politeness in language cooperation..............................................................................................9
Discourse analysis and implicature..............................................................................................9
Data Analysis.............................................................................................................................11
DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................13
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................15
APPENDIX....................................................................................................................................16
Radio Transcipt by Gawnem & McCulloh (2018)........................................................................16
BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................................18

INTRODUCTION
The radio transcript in the Appendix reveals the underlying challenge in intercultural language use.
Martinez-Flor & Uso-Juan (2011) defines Pragmatics as the situation of language use, language for
performance action and expression. Pragmatism features include sentence construction, and the
environment within which its application features. The use of language in a particular context and the
deixis in this case refers to spoken data. It is conversational communication, language implication and
presupposition. Based on philosophical and logical theories, pragmatics focuses on conversational,
interaction and act theory and includes language use, signs, and symbols. Listeners focus on
pronunciation, translations, and meanings. Pragmatics and intercultural communication highlight
language forms and the acquisition of pragmatic knowledge (Stadler, 2012). This research paper focuses
on discourse analysis as the main theory with reference to cultural interaction and other theories like
speech acts, implicature, cooperative principle and politeness. It looks at the philosophy of language and
conversations in language, effective communication as defined by utterances, communication intent and

proper grammar or vocabulary required to convey a message. In an intercultural environment, language
may have differences in meaning and sometimes language comes out as impolite because of
misconceptions. This research presents a pragmatic case scenario referring to English as a global
language.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Scholars identify English as a global language indicating that pragmatics is a study of language focused
on the user’s perspective (Crystal, 1997). Users of English as second language encounter problems
because of the use of language in different cultural contexts. Pragmatism as an academic area of research
looks at the use of language as speech, language for intercultural communication, interpersonal
pragmatics and competencies. Lin (2014) analyses historical developments in applied linguistics to point
out the role of critical discourse analysis ( CDA) in understanding langauge. Research on pragmatics in
English features the personal and professional contexts. Linguistic theories such as the Maxim theory by
Paul Herbert Grice influences the principles of pragmatism in which quality, quantity, relation and
manner matter (Keenan, 1976). By observing these maxims, the listener is able to deduce meaning from a
phrase.
Critical Discourse Analysis and the Sociopragramatic
CDA in applied linguistics is about social interactions, language, and culture (Blum K & Olshtain, 1984).
In the digital age, English stands out as the main language of communication on internet platforms.
However, the interaction between native and non-native persons reveals language gaps (Wierzbicka,
2003). In this case, power, distance, and level of imposition determine the adoption of the communication
mode and context. Language use at the college level is different from communication by acquaintances.
Within the learning institutions, the written response to academic situations and social interactions differ.
In the global sphere, environmental factors influence the mode of expression based on the cultural

influences in a region (Barth-Weignarten, Dehe, & Wichmann, 2012). This influences the adoption of
pedagogical contexts.
Critical discourse analysis looks at the integration of language and the formation of new discourse
activity. For example, it is interesting to note that the global interaction sponsored by the online platform
shapes the emergence of a digital language. Principles of CDA include the multidisciplinary nature, social
political stance and its complexities. The application of discourse depends on numerous factors such as
different contexts, group attitudes and personal opinions (Huckin, Andrus, & Lemon, 2013). Articulation
in DA involves application in different contexts including conversational communication and theoretical
approaches. It is the manipulation of information in order to shape the meaning or thinking. This is a
critique of the mind, attitude and behavior.
Pragmatism, CDA and other linguistic elements
Research by Keenan (1976) indicates that there is a universality in the principles of conversations.
Among this is logic, which reiterates that language needs meaning and people have to comprehend the
utterances. Pragmatics differs with Morpho-syntax which, supports the proper formation of sentences
because it does not focus on the ‘who’ and the ‘what’ of a language. Today, the globalization of language
means local languages are popular across different cultures. Conversations on internet platforms may not
make grammatical sense because of broken grammar and language rules. However, phonology in the
pragmatic sense is keen on the user rather than the applicability of language. Pragmatics honors the
context when looking for meaning in language. Implicature is the other meaning derived from a language
(Tagliamonte, 2005). Written conversation if different from the spoken. A conversation between two
people requires informative content. The absence of facial expressions in written hidden effective
communication. Pragmatism is people-centric hence; it works well with Semantics, which is a segment of
Linguistics. This means that it supports other areas of linguistics (Witchmann, 2004).

Pragmatics refers to the study of the speaker’s meaning, context, implicature and intended meaning. In
order to understand the social perspective of language discourse, it is important to have a grasp on the
relative distance of language. Formal pragmatics includes the use of speech acts in which speech varies
from being directional to a declaration or expression. These situations represent the intention, define the
word and separate circumstances. Speech has rules and may be sincere, apologetic, and propositional or
filled with warnings. Therefore speech acts is a communication tool used to address behavioral and
emotional levels (Arcidiacono, 2012). Determined by individual level of learning and the cultural
background, speech act presents real action. Pragmatic skills become critical when making judgments on
the intent of an interactive session. This allows the listener to differentiate between a question, an
agreeing statement and a disagreeing one.
Intercultural and discourse analysis
Cross-cultural communication may succeed or fail depending on the implicature. This brings out the
implicature theory, which looks at the contextual aspect of language. Conveying a message in language
depends on the personal and cultural perspective (Ogiermann, 2008). Deixis in pragmatism refers to time,
place and the person involved. On a wider scale, pragmatics refers to intercultural as well as interpersonal
pragmatics. Language may have a general meaning but individuals choose how they interpret it.
American life in an open society where free speech is acceptable may not agree with a Japanese who feels
restricted when airing opinion. This explains the connection between philosophies of language and the
theoretical application. Ogiermann (2008, p. 270) discusses interlanguage pragmatics by addressing the
acquisition of the second language. In the discussion, the non-native speaker develops the second
language through pragmatic awareness. The transfer of information makes sense in order for the learner
to comprehend the new language.
Fox Tree & Shrock (2002) delves deeper into the meaning of language by analyzing conversation through
relevance, social linguistics, and the contextual meaning. The mental conceptualization of language

supports the notion that social-cultural pragmatics is interpersonal. The realization that speech stems from
the cognitive determines the engagement of the psycholinguistic. Politicians capitalize on this to
manipulate political discourse. Pragmatic markers influence the interpersonal meaning based on attitude,
shared knowledge and reaction. These support the universal meaning of language to bring out CDA
aspects in real life experiences. The radio media discourse in focus (Appendix) highlights the role of
discourse markers in the conversational context with an intended ambiguity that limits mutual
assumptions and presuppositions (Jary, 1998).
Politeness in discourse analysis
Politeness theory supports the use of phonology in the pragmatic definition because of voice quality,
loudness in tone, pitch sound and speech timing (Sifianou & Fukushima, 2017). Prosody and gesture
emphasize the meaning through different tones. The failure of sociopragmatic involves misconceptions
derived from an inability to grasp the meaning of language (Thomas, 1995). Students learn linguistics in
order to refine the theoretical programmatic of language. This is a common occurrence in a cross-cultural
environment. The development of ethnic stereotypes based on language factors creates confusion in
language. The emergence of local language words in English explains the infiltration of culture in
language to distinguish grammatical linguistics from psycholinguistics and social communication. Using
the Gricean theory allows language users to consider it from different case scenarios because people may
make statements of what they literally mean wrongfully (Thomas, 1995, p. 56).
Culpeper, Bousfield, & Wichmann (2003) describes impoliteness as the use of strategies of
communication leading to social conflict and disharmony. Politeness as a solution reduces conflicts and
encourages relational feelings. Impoliteness in some languages may not feature as impolite in others. It is
important to study this concept because real life conflicts often arise leading to impoliteness. Variations in
tone and pitch and insisting on an issue may appear impolite but it is part of communication strategies.

Developing intercultural competency calls for effective communication between the native and non-
native persons. Thomas (1995) refers to pragmatic competence with reference to language application.
Identifying the speaker’s perception of meaning starts with an understanding of the sentence and its
meaning. The listener applies pragmatic principles when creating reference and value in a sentence.
Sentences lose meaning when they are ambiguous in their contexts. Pragmatics is about achieving actions
using language. Speech acts are the use of words to accomplish tasks. Utterances may refer to requests,
warnings, and questions. In CDA, it refers to direct and indirect speech and is evident in daily
communication including face to face, social media, and SMS texting. The speech act of refusing occurs
differently across cultures.
CDA and the cooperative principle
Coined by Herbert Grice, this cooperative theory highlights the natural, non-natural, intentional, and
conversational meanings (Crystal, 1997). Communication has meaning and it reflects in the sentences and
words. Supported by the theory of implicature, it identifies intentions in the meaning of words and the
philosophy of interpretation. In this theory, language is dynamic and traditional words may represent
contemporary meanings. The cooperative principle is part of social interaction and it supports the four
maxims of communication strategies. CDA emphasizes on the Maxim of quality, relation, manner,
quantity, and principle. When making inferences about the meaning in a sentence, the interpreter chooses
from these categories. In implicature, language has the power to inform and teachers use techniques such
as impoliteness to train in discourses. Prosody in CDA is the use of overall pitch, intonation and pitch
variations to stress a point (Cuenca, 2008). In order to resolve ambiguities, the use of polite language is
necessary. Managing conversations calls for differentiation in contexts. Some situations call for
assertiveness while others require subtleness. Translating tone and pitch continue to present challenges
because different cultures vary in pronunciation. Sometimes speech ay overlap while at other times, it
contradicts the cultural perspective (Witchann, 2004).

Deixis in the extra linguistic perspective considers who is speaking, where are they located, what time do
they speak and what gestures do they use? With different types of deixis, the discourse deixis is most
challenging because it creates varied references and speech act. The philosophical approach indicates the
language application in terms of expression (Kusuma, 2013). The descriptive approach talks about time,
person, discourse and social location. Kusuma (2013, p. 7) gives examples of this discussing place Deixis
and the spatial or geographical deixis in which the contextual refers to the specific places. Consequently,
social Deixis is the person behind the reference point. For example, a sentence referring to the Company
CEO may have a follow-up pronoun of pronouns referring to the person as either he or her.
FINDINGS
Politeness in language cooperation
At the beginning of the transcript (refer to Appendix), Gretchen suggests linguistic cooperation to which
Lauren agrees. As the conversation moves on, there is evidence of prosody and gesture as Gretchen uses
different tones to shape the meaning of the discussion.
Gretchen: Cooperatively, yes! So, when linguists talk about cooperation, there’s a kind of very specific
type of cooperative meaning that exists in linguistics. So, let’s do a model dialogue. Lauren, if I were to
say to you, “Would you like some coffee?”
In order to avoid misconceptions in this discourse, Lauren responds having understood the meaning of the
question. This is the ability to grasp the meaning of language without distorting the meaning. To respond
to a polite invitation she says: “Coffee would keep me awake”. Although the answer is acceptable some
listeners may view I as rude depending on the tone used.
There is further evidence of politeness theory in the invitation offered and response mechanisms used by
Gretchen. He says “and it’s often used to be politer, so rather than saying, “You want coffee?” “Yep!”
you might say, “Do you want coffee?” “Oh, coffee would keep me awake! That would be a great favor

that you could do for me!” Or, “Ehn, coffee would keep me awake…” rather than saying “No,” which
might be kind of blunt or rude.”
In this conversation, Lauren comes out as impolite because of the intonation and her choice of words
(Culpeper, Bousfield, & Wichmann, 2003).
Discourse analysis and implicature
The transcript conversation focuses on cooperative as a theme in order to bring out Critical Discourse
Analysis. Lauren says:
“So if it’s in the morning and I desperately need to be alert for the start of the day, it would be really
great that coffee keeps me awake. However, if it’s 11 p.m. at night, and I am known to not stay awake
very late, probably would mean that I don’t want coffee.
From this, a listener is able to understand something about the challenges of cooperation in that it comes
with culture adoption. Asians traveling to the UK have to make changes like when to take coffee or
certain meals, in line with the region's culture. This helps nonnatives to cope with a new environment.
She continues:
“….and even though there’s nothing in the linguistic content, there to indicate clearly whether they
desperately want coffee or do not want any caffeine right now, but we can tell from interaction”
In this discourse scenario, it is evident that the context comes out clearly through physical interaction. A
listener is able to listen and visualize the facial expressions. This prevents misconceptions in an
intercultural exchange of language. Lauren finalizes her comment saying:
“….we can tell from the context and the person that we’re speaking to, whether that means a definitive
yes or a definitive no because we’re doing something more complicated with understanding what’s
happening in that conversation than just looking at the words…”

In this discussion, a definite answer could be ‘yes’ or ‘no’ depending on the context. A definite answer in
this discourse needs a firm tone. Gretchen reiterates that saying, “You want coffee?” may sound improper
in some incidences. The same as “Yep!”
He gives a better response saying, “Do you want coffee?” would sound better as an invite while a better
response would be “Oh, coffee would keep me awake! That would be a great favor that you could do for
me!” Or, “Ehn, coffee would keep me awake…” because “No,” might sound blunt or rude.
Data Analysis
A study featured in the Journal for Politeness Research addresses pragmatic elements with reference to
the sociocultural discourses (Adrefia & Jones, 2017). Based on native Australian English and Bahasa
Indonesians, the study inquires about the expression of an apology in speech. Using similar data
collection method in this transcript analysis the study reveals the underlying challenges of language
cooperation. Using oral discourse completion task (DCT) which is favorable for use on a wide range of
contexts, the discourse highlights the use of language in a multicultural environment.
This spoken data reveals limitations in that it may lose effectiveness in the formal sector (Jary, 1998).
Suitable for analyzing intercultural linguistics speakers, the method checks for competencies in language
usage and the contextual. It is essential in analyzing competencies in language pragmatic. With an aim of
discovering the interlanguage pragmatics, this study looks at the use of foreign language by natives and
nonnatives. Spoken language in the professional setting requires high-level competency. However, in this
case, it features radio content and language differences. Comprehension and its challenges in learning and
professional development. From the study, assessing the learner’s language competencies involves
multiple elements. Different tasks present essential variables and projections for intervention through new
strategies. Done within the natural environment, the variables include gender, age, power and level of
imposition. Although this method is effective in collecting data from situations, its limitations include the

lack of validity due to bias and a compromised naturalness. There is a risk of losing concrete information
when capturing information.
The objectives of this research is to support previous research pragmatic elements used in social life today
(Macaulay, 2002, p. 773). Face to face, interaction role-plays and interviews are used to collect the
natural data. The individual discourse test provides a review on the differences between the native and
non-native speakers with reference to polite language use. Research questions, in this case, are;” how
does language unite different cultures? What is the underlying challenge for cooperative language? What
are language apology strategies effective in a multicultural setting? Are there any gender and cultural
differences in apology strategies in communities? And what is the implicature of language cooperative?”
Basing analysis of literature material on key concepts, this research looks at apologizing in daily
interactions, negative politeness and moral responsibility, an apology as a social phenomenon, cross-
cultural speech realization, an apology as a sociolinguistic strategy (Trillo, 2002). From this, the functions
of apology are admitting to having committed an offense during an interaction. It seeks to improve
relationships and shows commitment to harmonious relationships. In CDA working out meaning through
apology strategies, explore the intercultural perspective of language. This shows how to express it in each
context and it’s direct versus indirect connotations. In the discussion, gender variations are important
because it highlights apology from a self-oriented perspective to point out that men and women have
differences in opinion about the apology.
The spoken data collected involves clauses, phrases, words, and strategies. It looks at language from a
multicultural perspective. It agrees that the analysis of common words and their usage may represent
sincerity and regret. Evidence presented agrees that the use of the word ‘am sorry’ was applicable in the
formal. Intensified application of apology highlights its use in different cultural settings (Manns, Martin,
& Bowe, 2014). The paper discusses apology from the cultural perspective revealing influence from
global culture, gender variations, and intensity in social groups. The research makes a recommendation

for further research on the issues. Among this is the prevention of misconception in interaction and
exploration of pragmatics in sociocultural communication. Politeness is a major concept in pragmatics
and it shapes language contexts in many ways. Impoliteness is a subject of interest because of the critics it
receives on the contextual matters. In the cross-cultural setting, apology describes a behavior that may
reinforce or enhance the context of meaning.
DISCUSSION
In support of Critical Discourse Analysis, the Maxim theory highlights four contexts, which define a
sentence in any communication discourse (Thomas, 1995). The Maxim of quantity advocates for
information contained in the right size. For example, a sentence needs to have short and simple sentences
that are easy to understand. Complex and long sentences often miss communicating accurately. For
example, instead of saying “I went to school so that I can learn and gain knowledge for professional
growth and development”. It is preferable to state, “I went to school to gain knowledge for professional
development”. The two sentences have the same meaning but the latter is grammatically correct and
makes more sense. This applies to the Maxim of Relation, which advocates for the presentation of
relevant information, Maxim of Manner for clarity that is free from ambiguity and Maxim of Quality that
refers to truthful statements.
Although the Grice principle provides a guide for pragmatism and language application, it has limitations.
Critiques like Keenan (1976, p. 69) advocate for a unified approach to language expression by
understanding the relevance in a text. This is critical to analyze the cognitive or psychological
perspective. Children and nonnative learners express themselves differently. A child may say “Give water
me” which means “Give me water”. A nonnative may also mix up grammar rules compromising the
accuracy of language inferences. The limitation of the Grice theory disqualifies it as the main concept for
language contextualization in a discourse.

Background knowledge in CDA shapes the context by defining the interpersonal and cultural contexts.
Native English learners often capitalize on specific phrases, words, and sentence structures. For example,
a native speaker from Australia says, “This picture is grim, you reckon”. In the same context, an English
native from the UK says, “This is a grim picture, isn’t it?” similarly, the same sentence in US English
means “This is a grim picture, right?”
In Critical Discourse Analysis, pragmatism and phonology comes into picture during conversations. For
example, the use of facial expressions and emoji in online communication is common. The sentence,
“Please make some sense  ”has a smiling face giving it a light touch. This is very different from “Please
make some sense!” Which sounds harsh and rude. Consequently, “Please make some sense” is subtle.
Pragmatism acknowledges the situation within which the conversation takes place (Blum K & Olshtain,
1984). The real meanings as well as the rhetoric and speech strategies. During interactions different
discourses come about. This could be in the media, political scene or science. From the case example,
discourse in verbal interaction presents challenges. Misunderstandings in casual and official
communication prevents effective communication among individuals, in groups and institutions.
Communication among the native and non-natives comes from the existing social relations.
Semantics and Pragmatics deal with meaning but the latter focuses on the context while the former is
about variations in meanings (Cuenca, 2008). For example, “Caroline delivered then got married” may
represent two meanings. Caroline made a delivery of something before her wedding. Alternatively, it
could imply that Caroline had a baby before she got married. This Semantic form, different from the
Pragmatic mode in which it states that the same sentence features in different contexts. In this case, the
same sentence could feature in the context of a wedding event but some people see it as Caroline’s life
plan in which she had a baby first before making her vows. In essence, Pragmatics looks at who, when,
where and for what reason.

Ambiguity in speech occurs when the sentence reference points are wrong. For example, “Would you like
to have some coffee?” refers to an invitation. However, it might be construed differently depending on
the case application. For some people, this is not a polite request. In the African culture, it is inhospitable
to ask people if they want it. Instead, it is better to offer them food or drink directly. In this case, a polite
invitation would be “I would like you to have some coffee, please have a cup”. In order to avoid sounding
wrong, learners in an intercultural environment should get a grasp of the right meaning. Pragmatic
incompetence arises when the language lacks proper intonation or features an impolite notion (O Keeffe,
Clancy, & Adams, 2011).
CONCLUSION
Critical discourse analysis is language in social practice. An analysis of changes in the global society
indicates an emergence of English as a global language. However, its survival in the midst of cultural
differences depends on the social contexts. Written and spoken discourse analysis reveals variations in
language methods and comprehension. Intercultural communications is a common phenomenon in the
global sphere today. However, challenges arising raise questions about the misconceptions and deviations
from language meanings. This questions the effectiveness of collective language in providing a single
meaning. The existence of different languages translates to different speech acts hence variations in
meaning. The critical discourse analysis (CDA) supports other theories like the Maxim theory, which
acknowledges the use of multiple explanations of language based on the contexts and implicature.
Research in pragmatics dictates that intercultural pragmatics depends on the time, place and situation at
hand. Having a clear understanding prevents impoliteness and misconceptions. Intercultural and social
pragmatism provides social significance. CDA highlights discourse structures with reference to the social
structures and the existing meanings. This is an analysis of conversations, written and communication
elements in natural language. Its multidimensional approach indicates the need to study different
dimensions of language such as sound, gestures, intonation, and style.

APPENDIX
Radio Transcipt by Gawnem & McCulloh (2018)
(A closer look at this radio transcript (Spoken data) identifies language cooperation as a challenge
because of pragmatic issues involved).
Gretchen: Let’s talk about linguistic cooperation.
Lauren: Okay, we’ll do it cooperatively as well!
Gretchen: Cooperatively, yes! So, when linguists talk about cooperation, there’s a kind of very specific
type of cooperative meaning that exists in linguistics. So, let’s do a model dialogue. Lauren, if I were to
say to you, “Would you like some coffee?”
Lauren: I would say, “Coffee would keep me awake.”
Gretchen: And this could mean, depending on my knowledge of Lauren’s time zone and her current
desires and so on, that she might want coffee or she might not want coffee.
Lauren: So if it’s in the morning and I desperately need to be alert for the start of the day, it would be
really great that coffee keeps me awake. But if it’s 11 p.m. at night, and I am known to not stay awake
very late, probably would mean that I don’t want coffee. And even though there’s nothing in the linguistic
content there to indicate clearly whether they desperately want coffee or do not want any caffeine right
now, but we can tell from interaction, we can tell from the context and the person that we’re speaking to,

whether that means a definitive yes or a definitive no, because we’re doing something more complicated
with understanding what’s happening in that conversation than just looking at the words.
Gretchen: And it’s often used to be politer, so rather than saying, “You want coffee?” “Yep!” you might
say, “Do you want coffee?” “Oh, coffee would keep me awake! That would be a great favor that you
could do for me!” Or, “Ehn, coffee would keep me awake…” rather than saying “No,” which might be
kind of blunt or rude.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adrefia, & Jones, F. J. (2017). Comparing Apologiesin Australian English and Bahasa
Indonesia: Cultural and gender perspectives. (D. Mouton, Ed.) Journal of Politeness
Research, 13(1), 89-119. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/BAT/Downloads/2237586_2020456063_JournalofPolitenessResearchCo
m.pdf
Arcidiacono, F. (2012). Pragmatics: Quantitative Methods: The Encyclopedia of Applied
Linguistics. doi: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0947
Barth-Weignarten, D., Dehe, N., Wichmann, A., & Eds), (. (2012). Where Prosody meets
Pragmatics. Studies in Pragmatics. Applied Linguistics, 8, 1-9.
Blum K, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross cultural study of Speech Act
Realisation patterns ( CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3).
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language . Cambridge University Press.
Cuenca, M. J. (2008). Pragmatic markers in contrast: The case of well. Journal of Pragmatics,
1373-1391.
Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: with special
reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Prgmatics 35, 35(10-11), 1545-
1579.
Fox Tree, J. E., & Shrock, J. C. (2002). Basic meanings of you know and I mean. Journal of
Pragmatics, 727-747.

Gawnem, L., & McCulloh, G. (2018). Creating Language for fun and learning. Retrieved from
Linguthusian: https://lingthusiasm.com/tagged/episodes
Huckin, T., Andrus, J., & Lemon, J. C. (2013). Critical discourse analysis and rhetoric and
composition. College Composition and Communication, 107-129.
Jary, M. (1998). Relevance theory and the communication of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics,
30, 1-19.
Keenan, E. O. (1976). The universality of conversational postulates. Language in Society, 5(1),
67-80. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/BAT/Downloads/2237593_1722491921_universalityofconversationalpo.p
df
Kusuma, R. T. (2013). Deixies in Pragmatics. Deixies.
Lin, A. (2014). Critical discourse analysis in applied linguistics: A methodological review.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 213-232.
Macaulay, R. (2002). You know, it depends. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 749-767.
Manns, H., Martin, K., & Bowe, H. (2014). Communication across cultures: Mutual
understanding in a global world. Cambridge University Press.
Martinez-Flor, A., & Uso-Juan, U. (2011). Research methodologies in pragmatics: Eliciting
refusals to requests. Estudios de linguistica inglesa aplicade 11 47-87. Retrieved from
https://www.ufrgs.br/ppgletras/2017selecao/ATT00243.pdf
O Keeffe, A., Clancy, B., & Adams, S. (2011). Researching Pragmatics. In C. a. Okeefe,
Introducing Pragmatics in Use (pp. 18-35). Routledge.

Ogiermann, A. (2008). Cross-cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of human interaction.
Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(3), 259-286.
Sifianou, M., & Fukushima, S. (2017). Conceptualizing politeness in Japanese and Greek.
Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(4), 525-555. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/BAT/Downloads/2237585_1901478716_InterculturalPragmaticsConcept.
pdf
Stadler, S. (2012). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.
Blackwell.
Tagliamonte, S. (2005). So who? Like how? Just What? Discourse markers in the conversation
of YOung Canadians. Journal of Pragmatics, 1896-1915.
Thomas, J. (1995, February 4). Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure. University of Lancaster.
Retrieved from Downloads:
https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/4/2/91/167524
Trillo, R. J. (2002). The pragatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of
English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 769-784. Retrieved from
https://www.clancorpus.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Pragmatic_Fossilization.PDF
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Different cultures, different languages different speech acts. In A.
Wierzbicka, Cross-cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of human interaction (pp. 25-65).
Berlin; New York: Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Witchann, A. (2004). The intonation of please-requests: corpus based study. Journal of
Pragmatics, 36, 1521-49.