Article published in:
Journal of Historical Pragmatics
Vol. 16:1 (2015) ► pp. 1–24

Twenty years of historical pragmatics

Origins, developments and changing thought styles

| University of Helsinki, Finland
| University of Zurich, Switzerland
This paper provides an outline of the changes in linguistics that gave rise to historical pragmatics in the 1990s and that have shaped its development over the twenty years of its existence. These changes have affected virtually all aspects of linguistic analyses: the nature of the data, the research questions, the methods and tools that are being used for the analysis, as well as the nature of the generalizations and findings that result from these investigations. We deal with the changes in terms of shifts in thought styles and discuss seven different turns: the pragmatic turn, the socio-cultural turn, the dispersive turn, the empirical turn, the digital turn, the discursive turn and the diachronic turn. We also deal with some long-standing, recent or emerging interfaces where historical pragmatics interacts with other disciplines and we discuss some future challenges, such as the multimodality and fluidity of communication and the problem of combining big data with pragmatic micro analyses.
Keywords: interfaces, thought styles, future of historical pragmatics, history of historical pragmatics
Published online: 03 April 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.16.1.01taa
References

References

Aarts, Bas
2007 Syntactic Gradience: The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aiden, Erez and Jean-Baptiste Michel
2013 Uncharted. Big Data as a Lens on Human Culture. New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua
1971 “Out of the Pragmatic Wastebasket”. Linguistic Inquiry 2 (3): 401–407.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Edward Finegan
1992 “The Linguistic Evolution of Five Written and Speech-based English Genres from the 17th to the 20th Centuries”. In Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen and Irma Taavitsainen (eds), History of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics, 688–704. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper
(eds) 1989 Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J.
1996 Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 “Historical Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics: Problems and Strategies”. In Merja Kytö (ed.), English Corpus Linguistics: Crossing Paths, 101–31. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman
1989 “Politeness Theory and Shakespeare’s Four Major Tragedies”. Language in Society 18 (2): 159–212. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian and George Yule
1983 Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1980 Rules and Representations. Woodbridge Lectures Delivered at Columbia University in November 1978. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
CoRD: Corpus Resource Database
Available online at: www​.helsinki​.fi​/varieng​/CoRD
Clark, Herbert H. and Jean E. Fox Tree
2002 “Using uh and um in Spontaneous Speaking”. Cognition 84: 73–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Conde-Silvestre, J. Camilo and Juan M. Hernández-Campoy
2012 “Introduction”. In Juan M. Hernández-Campoy and J. Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics, 1–8. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan and Merja Kytö
2010 Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
2001 Language and Characterisation: People in Plays and Other Texts. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Denison, David
2001 “Gradience and Linguistic Change”. In Laurel J. Brinton (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1999: Selected Papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Vancouver, 9–13 August 1999, 119–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref
De Smet, Hendrik, Hans-Jürgen Diller and Jukka Tyrkkö
The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts, version 3.0 (CLMET3.0).
Diller Hans-Jürgen, Hendrik de Smet and Jukka Tyrkkö
2010 “A European Database of Descriptors of English Electronic Texts”. The European English Messenger 19 (2): 29–35.Google Scholar
Early English Books Online (EEBO)
ProQuest. eebo​.chadwyck​.com​/about​/about​.htm
Eighteenth Century Collections Online (EECO)
Gale Digital Collections. gdc​.gale​.com​/products​/eighteenth​-century​-collections​-online/
Erard, Michael
2007 Um... Slips, Stumbles, and Verbal Blunders, and What They Mean. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Finkenstaedt, Thomas
1963 You und thou: Studien zur Anrede im Englischen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fludernik, Monika
1993 The Fiction of Language and the Languages of Fiction: The Linguistic Representation of Speech and Consciousness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1996 Towards a “Natural” Narratology. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Alastair
1982 Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genes and Modes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M.
1989 Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
The Historical Thesaurus of English
, version 4.0 2014 Glasgow: University of Glasgow. http://​historicalthesaurus​.arts​.gla​.ac​.uk/Google Scholar
Hübler, Axel
2007 The Nonverbal Shift in Early Modern English Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Andreas and Andreas H. Jucker
1995 “The Historical Perspective in Pragmatics”. In Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, 3–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H.
(ed.) 1995 Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “Historical Pragmatics”. Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (5): 894–906. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012a “Pragmatics in the History of Linguistic Thought”. In Keith Allan and Kasia Jaszczolt (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, 495–512. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012b “ ‘These imputations are too common, sir’: Politeness in Early Modern English Dialogues: The Case of Ben Jonson’s Volpone, or The Fox ”. In Gabriella Mazzon and Luisanna Fodde (eds), Historical Perspectives on Forms of English Dialogue, 40–58. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
2015 “ Uh and um as Planners in the Corpus of Historical American English”. In Irma Taavitsainen, Merja Kytö, Claudia Claridge and Jeremy Smith (eds), Developments in English: Expanding Electronic Evidence, 162–77 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Päivi Pahta
2011 “Communicating Manuscripts: Authors, Scribes, Readers, Listeners and Communicating Characters”. In Päivi Pahta and Andreas H. Jucker (eds), Communicating Early English Manuscripts, 3–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Irma Taavitsainen
2012 “Pragmatic Variables”. In Juan M. Hernández-Campoy and J. Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics, 293–306. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 English Historical Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
2014 “Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics: Intersections and Interactions”. In Irma Taavitsainen, Andreas H. Jucker and Jukka Tuominen (eds), Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics, 3–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H., Irma Taavitsainen and Gerold Schneider
2012 “Semantic Corpus Trawling: Expressions of “Courtesy” and “Politeness” in the Helsinki Corpus ”. In Carla Suhr and Irma Taavitsainen (eds), Developing Corpus Methodology for Historical Pragmatics. (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 11.) Available online at: http://​www​.helsinki​.fi​/varieng​/journal​/volumes​/11​/jucker​_taavitsainen​_schneider/.
Kjellmer, Göran
2008 “Self-repetition in Spoken English Discourse”. In Terttu Nevalainen, Irma Taavitsainen, Päivi Pahta and Minna Korhonen (eds), The Dynamics of Linguistic Variation: Corpus Evidence on English Past and Present, 37–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koch, Peter and Wulf Oesterreicher
1985 “Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte”. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36: 15–43.Google Scholar
Kopytko, Roman
1995 “Linguistic Politeness Strategies in Shakespeare’s Plays”. In Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, 515–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja and Matti Peikola
2014 “Philology on the Move: Manuscript Studies at the Dawn of the 21st Century”. Studia Neophilologica 86: 1–8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
1994 Principles of Linguistic Change, Volume. 1: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger
1997 Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N.
1983 Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. and Richard J. Watts
2005 “Politeness Theory and Relational Work”. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 9–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marttila, Ville
2014 Creating Digital Editions for Corpus Linguistics: The Case of Potage Dyvers, A Family of Six Middle English Recipe Collections. PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki. helda​.helsinki​.fi​/bitstream​/handle​/10138​/135589​/Marttila​_PhDThesis​.pdf​?sequence​=3
Meurman-Solin, Anneli
1993 Variation and Change in Early Scottish Prose. Studies Based on the Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Available online at: http://​www​.helsinki​.fi​/varieng​/series​/volumes​/14Google Scholar
Meurman-Solin, Anneli and Jukka Tyrkkö
(eds) 2013 Principles and Practices for the Digital Editing and Annotation of Diachronic Data. Helsinki: VARIENG, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Mey, Jacob
2001 Pragmatics. An Introduction. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mey, Jacob L.
2009 “Pragmatics: Overview”. In Jacob Mey (ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, 786–97. 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Yuan Kui Shen, Aviva Presser Aiden, Adrian Veres, Matthew K. Gray, The Google Books Team, Joseph P. Pickett, Dale Hoiberg, Dan Clancy, Peter Norvig, Jon Orwant, Steven Pinker, Martin A. Nowak, Erez Lieberman Aiden
2010 “Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books”. Science. Available online at: http://​www​.sciencemag​.org​/content​/early​/2010​/12​/15​/science​.1199644Google Scholar
Mills, Sara
2011 “Discursive Approaches to Politeness and Impoliteness”. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (ed.), Discursive Approaches to Politeness, 19–56. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mulholland, Joan
1967 “ ‘Thou’ and ‘You’ in Shakespeare: A Study in the Second Person Pronouns”. English Studies 48: 34–43.Google Scholar
Nathan, N.
1959 “Pronouns of Address in the Canterbury Tales”. Mediaeval Studies xxi: 193–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg
1995 “Constraints on Politeness: The Pragmatics of Address Formulae in Early English Correspondence”. In Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, 541–601. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ninio, Anat and Catherine E. Snow
1996 Pragmatic Development: Essays in Developmental Science. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Oleksy, Wieslaw
(ed.) 1989 Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti
1986 “Variation and the Study of English Historical Syntax”. In David Sankoff (ed.), Diversity and Diachrony, 97–109. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne
1982 Socio-Historical Linguistics: Its Status and Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, Jesús
(ed.) 2008 Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics: A Mutualistic Entente. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rühlemann, Christoph and Karin Aijmer
2015 “Corpus Pragmatics: Laying the Foundations”. In Karin Aijmer and Christoph Rühlemann (eds), A Handbook of Corpus Pragmatics: Exploring Speaker and Writer Meaning in Computer Corpora, 1–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson
1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation”. Language 50 (4): 696–735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
2010 “Some Other ‘uh(m)’s’”. Discourse Processes 47: 130–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Klaus P.
2012 “Appropriate Behaviour across Varieties of English”. Journal of Pragmatics 44 (9): 1022–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott
1995 “The Semantic and Pragmatic Development of Substitutive Complex Prepositions in English”. In Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, 243–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sell, Roger D.
1985a “Tellability and Politeness in ‘The Miller’s Tale’: First Steps in Literary Pragmatics”. English Studies: A Journal of English Language and Literature 66 (6): 496–512. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1985b “Politeness in Chaucer: Suggestions Towards a Methodology for Pragmatic Stylistics”. Studia Neophilologica 57: 175–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 1991 Literary Pragmatics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, Jeremy and Christian Kay
2011 “The Pragmatics of Punctuation in Older Scots”. In Päivi Pahta and Andreas H. Jucker (eds), Communicating Early English Manuscripts, 212–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stidston, Russell O.
1917 The Use of ye in the Function of thou in Middle English Literature from Ms Auchinleck to Ms Vernon. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Stubbs, Michael
1983 Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Suhr, Carla and Irma Taavitsainen
(eds) 2012 Developing Corpus Methodology for Historical Pragmatics. (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English, Volume 11.) Available online at: http://​www​.helsinki​.fi​/varieng​/series​/volumes​/11/
Taavitsainen, Irma
1993 “Genre / Subgenre Styles in Late Middle English?” In Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö and Minna Palander-Collin (eds), Early English in the Computer Age, 171–200. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2000 “Science”. In Peter Brown (ed.), A Companion to Chaucer, 378–96. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2002 “Historical Discourse Analysis: Scientific Language and Thought-styles”. In Teresa Fanego, Bélén Méndez-Naya and Elena Seoane (eds), Sounds, Words, Texts and Change: Selected Papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7–11 September 2000 , 201–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “The Pragmatics of Knowledge and Meaning: Corpus Linguistic Approaches to Changing Thought-styles in Early Modern Medical Discourse”. In Andreas H. Jucker, Daniel Schreier and Marianne Hundt (eds), Corpora: Pragmatics and Discourse, 37–62. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2010 “Discourse and Genre Dynamics in Early Modern English Medical Writing”. In Irma Taavitsainen and Päivi Pahta (eds), Early Modern English Medical Texts: Corpus Description and Studies, 29–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. “Genre Dynamics in the History of English”. In Merja Kytö and Päivi Pahta (eds) Cambridge Handbook of Historical Linguistics Cambridge Cambridge University Press Crossref
Taavitsainen, Irma and Susan Fitzmaurice
2007 “Historical Pragmatics: What It Is and How to Do It?” In Susan Fitzmaurice and Irma Taavitsainen (eds), Methods in Historical Pragmatics, 11–36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma, Merja Kytö, Claudia Claridge and Jeremy Smith
(eds) 2015 Developments in English: Expanding Electronic Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Todorov, Tzvetan
1990 Genres in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toolan, Michael
1996 Total Speech: An Integrational Linguistic Approach to Language. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
2001 Narrative: A Critical Linguistic Introduction. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel
2011 “ Uh and Um as Sociolinguistic Markers in British English”. The International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16: 173–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2004 “Historical Pragmatics”. In Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward (eds), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 538–61. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2008 “The State of English Language Studies: A Linguistic Perspective”. In Marianne Thormählen (ed.), English Now. Selected Papers from the 20th IAUPE Conference in Lund 2007, 199–225. Lund: Lund Studies in English.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Graham Trousdale
2010 Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef
1999 Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J.
2003 Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, Tim
2010 “Context”. In Louise Cummings (ed.), The Pragmatics Encyclopedia, 74–75. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, William. Labov and Marvin Herzog
1968 “Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change”. In Winfred P. Lehman and Yakov Malkiel (eds), Directions for Historical Linguistics: A Symposium, 95–195. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Graham T.
2013 Women’s Epistolary Utterance: A Study of the Letters of Joan and Maria Thynne, 1575–1611. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 18 other publications

No author info given
2017. Preface. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 18:2 ► pp. 157 ff. Crossref logo
Bogdanowska-Jakubowska, Ewa & Nika Bogdanowska
2021. Addressing the other in Poland (the 20th and 21st centuries): Different times, different contexts, different meanings. Journal of Pragmatics 178 ► pp. 301 ff. Crossref logo
Esteve Ramos, María José
2021.  In “All families and genera”, ► pp. 210 ff. Crossref logo
Hall, Jon
2019. Seneca’s De Beneficiis and non-verbal politeness in ancient Rome. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 20:2 ► pp. 225 ff. Crossref logo
Jucker, Andreas
2020.  In Politeness in the History of English, Crossref logo
Jucker, Andreas H.
2018.  In Handbuch Pragmatik, ► pp. 132 ff. Crossref logo
Jucker, Andreas H. & Larssyn Staley
2017.  In The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ► pp. 403 ff. Crossref logo
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Kim Ridealgh
2019. Introduction. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 20:2 ► pp. 169 ff. Crossref logo
Lehto, Anu
2019.  In Corpus-based Research on Variation in English Legal Discourse [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 91], ► pp. 235 ff. Crossref logo
Martí Sánchez, Manuel
2020. Construcciones formales y tradiciones discursivas en cuatro textos médicos novatores fundamentales. Revista de Filología Española 100:1 ► pp. 161 ff. Crossref logo
Nakayasu, Minako
2017. Spatio-temporal Systems in Paston Letters. Studia Neophilologica 89:sup1 ► pp. 75 ff. Crossref logo
Nakayasu, Minako
2018.  In Sociocultural Dimensions of Lexis and Text in the History of English [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 343], ► pp. 125 ff. Crossref logo
Nakayasu, Minako
2021. Spatio-Temporal Systems in Shakespeare’s Dialogues: A Case from Julius Caesar . Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 0:0 Crossref logo
Ní Mhocháin, Róisín & Anne O’Keeffe
2017. Introduction. Corpus Pragmatics 1:4 ► pp. 293 ff. Crossref logo
SAIZ-SÁNCHEZ, MARTA
2020. El funcionamiento discursivo de los marcadores de acuerdo y de desacuerdo sí, sí + V-eco y sí + fazer en español medieval. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 97:2 ► pp. 125 ff. Crossref logo
Schiegg, Markus
2016. Scribes’ Voices: The Relevance and Types of Early Medieval Colophons. Studia Neophilologica 88:2 ► pp. 129 ff. Crossref logo
Taavitsainen, Irma
2017. Meaning-making practices in the history of medical English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 18:2 ► pp. 252 ff. Crossref logo
Taavitsainen, Irma
2018.  In Diachronic Corpora, Genre, and Language Change [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 85], ► pp. 95 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 september 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.