Cover not available
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: 3 April 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.16.1.01taa
References (99)
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Gillian and George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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: [URL]
Clark, Herbert H. and Jean E. Fox Tree. 2002. “Using uh and um in Spontaneous Speaking”. Cognition 841: 73–111. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 19991, 119–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo
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. [URL]
Eighteenth Century Collections Online (EECO). Gale Digital Collections. [URL]
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. [URL]Google Scholar
Hübler, Axel. 2007. The Nonverbal Shift in Early Modern English Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.). 1995. Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Historical Pragmatics”. Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (5): 894–906. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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: [URL].
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, Peter and Wulf Oesterreicher. 1985. “Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte”. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 361: 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja and Matti Peikola. 2014. “Philology on the Move: Manuscript Studies at the Dawn of the 21st Century”. Studia Neophilologica 861: 1–8. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. and Richard J. Watts. 2005. “Politeness Theory and Relational Work”. Journal of Politeness Research 11: 9–33. DOI logoGoogle 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. [URL]
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: [URL]Google 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: [URL]Google 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mulholland, Joan. 1967. “‘Thou’ and ‘You’ in Shakespeare: A Study in the Second Person Pronouns”. English Studies 481: 34–43.Google Scholar
Nathan, N. 1959. “Pronouns of Address in the Canterbury Tales”. Mediaeval Studies xxi1: 193–201. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1982. Socio-Historical Linguistics: Its Status and Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, Jesús (ed.). 2008. Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics: A Mutualistic Entente. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2010. “Some Other ‘uh(m)’s’”. Discourse Processes 471: 130–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Klaus P. 2012. “Appropriate Behaviour across Varieties of English”. Journal of Pragmatics 44 (9): 1022–37. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1985b. “Politeness in Chaucer: Suggestions Towards a Methodology for Pragmatic Stylistics”. Studia Neophilologica 571: 175–85. DOI logoGoogle 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: [URL]
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logo
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma, Merja Kytö, Claudia Claridge and Jeremy Smith (eds). 2015. Developments in English: Expanding Electronic Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 161: 173–96. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
Cited by (25)

Cited by 25 other publications

Havasi, Zsuzsanna
2023. Diszkurzív gyakorlat és férji hatalom összefüggései középmagyar kori úriszéki periratok forráskiadásában. Társadalmi Nemek Tudománya Interdiszciplináris eFolyóirat 12:2 ► pp. 150 ff. DOI logo
Hiltunen, Turo & Irma Taavitsainen
2022. Chapter 1. Corpora, pragmatics, and historical medical discourse. In Corpus Pragmatic Studies on the History of Medical Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 330], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Nagy C., Katalin
2022. „Aki tud megköszönném”. Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat 9:1 ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
Nicolini, Matteo
2022. Legal Geography, Linguistics, and Borders. In Legal Geography [Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, 105], ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
Sanders, José & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul
2022. Coherence in translation. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 23:2 ► pp. 204 ff. DOI logo
Barron, Anne
2021. Synchronic and Diachronic Pragmatic Variability. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 182 ff. DOI logo
Esteve Ramos, María José
2021. Chapter 11. “This ingenious hypothe∫is hath a great appearance of truth”. In “All families and genera”, ► pp. 210 ff. DOI logo
Jucker, Andreas
2020. Politeness in the History of English, DOI logo
Lefeuvre, Florence & Gabriella Parussa
2020. L’oral représenté en diachronie et en synchronie : une voie d’accès à l’oral spontané ?. Langages N° 217:1 ► pp. 9 ff. DOI 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. DOI 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. DOI logo
Hall, Jon
2019. Seneca’s De Beneficiis and non-verbal politeness in ancient Rome. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 20:2 ► pp. 225 ff. DOI logo
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Kim Ridealgh
2019. Introduction. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 20:2 ► pp. 169 ff. DOI logo
Lehto, Anu
2019. Chapter 10. The representation of citizens and monarchy in Acts of Parliament in 1800 to 2000. In Corpus-based Research on Variation in English Legal Discourse [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 91], ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
Jucker, Andreas H.
2018. Historische Pragmatik. In Handbuch Pragmatik, ► pp. 132 ff. DOI logo
Jucker, Andreas H. & Larssyn Staley
2017. (Im)politeness and Developments in Methodology. In The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ► pp. 403 ff. DOI logo
Nakayasu, Minako
2017. Spatio-temporal Systems in Paston Letters. Studia Neophilologica 89:sup1 ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Nakayasu, Minako
2018. Chapter 6. Spatio-temporal systems in Chaucer. In Sociocultural Dimensions of Lexis and Text in the History of English [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 343], ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo
Nakayasu, Minako
2021. Spatio-Temporal Systems in Shakespeare’s Dialogues: A Case from Julius Caesar . Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 56:s1 ► pp. 425 ff. DOI logo
Ní Mhocháin, Róisín & Anne O’Keeffe
2017. Introduction. Corpus Pragmatics 1:4 ► pp. 293 ff. DOI logo
Taavitsainen, Irma
2017. Meaning-making practices in the history of medical English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 18:2 ► pp. 252 ff. DOI logo
Taavitsainen, Irma
2018. Scholastic genre scripts in English medical writing 1375–1800. In Diachronic Corpora, Genre, and Language Change [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 85], ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo
Schiegg, Markus
2016. Scribes’ Voices: The Relevance and Types of Early Medieval Colophons. Studia Neophilologica 88:2 ► pp. 129 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2017. Preface. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 18:2 ► pp. 157 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 13 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. 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.