‘Well’ in Dialogue Games

• Acknowledgements | p. ix
• 1. Introduction | p. 1
• 1.1. Aims
• 1.2. Idealizations
• 1.3. Chapter outlines
• 2. Theory | p. 5
• 2.1. Dialogue games
• 2.2. Conversational analysis
• 2.3. Computational models of dialogue
• 3. Earlier Treatments of Well | p. 17
• 3.1. Lakoff (1973a)
• 3.2. Murray (1979)
• 3.3. Svartvik (1980)
• 3.4. Owen (1981)
• 4. The Present Treatment | p. 27
• 4.1. The hypothesis
• 4.2. Development of the hypothesis
• 4.3. Data and classification
• 5. Well as a Qualifier | p. 35
• 5.1. Question-answer exchanges
• 5.2. Other exchanges
• 6. Well as a Frame | p. 53
• 6.1. Opening a dialogue
• 6.2. Transition situations
• 6.3. Closing
• 6.4. Turn internal cases
• 7. Contrastive Studies | p. 67
• 7.1. Well vs. oh
• 7.2. Well and Finnish no
• 7.3. Schourup (1983)
• 8. Extensions | p. 91
• 8.1. Politeness
• 8.2. Emotions
• 8.3. Well in writing
• Footnotes | p. 95
• Sources of Examples | p. 99

Cited by 20 other publications

Aijmer, Karin

2015.  In Researching Sociopragmatic Variability, ► pp. 201 ff.

Aijmer, Karin

2021. “That’s well good”: A Re-emergent Intensifier in Current British English. Journal of English Linguistics 49:1 ► pp. 18 ff.

Aijmer, Karin & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen

2003. The discourse particle well and its equivalents in Swedish and Dutch. Linguistics 41:6

Aijmer, Karin & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen

2009.  In Handbook of Pragmatics, ► pp. 1 ff.

Alcón-Soler, Eva & Deborah Tricker

2021. The use of ‘well’ in spoken interaction. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics ► pp. 119 ff.

Arminen, Ilkka & Minna Leinonen

2006. Mobile phone call openings: tailoring answers to personalized summonses. Discourse Studies 8:3 ► pp. 339 ff.

Defour, Tine & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen

2010. “Positive Appraisal” as a Core Meaning ofwell: A Corpus-Based Analysis in Middle and Early Modern English Data. English Studies 91:6 ► pp. 643 ff.

Fleckenstein, Kristen

2022.  Well-prefaced constructed dialogue as a marker of stance in online abortion discourse. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 32:1 ► pp. 80 ff.

Heritage, John

2018.  In Between Turn and Sequence [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 31], ► pp. 155 ff.

Huang, Lan-fen

2019. A Corpus-Based Exploration of the Discourse Marker Well in Spoken Interlanguage. Language and Speech 62:3 ► pp. 570 ff.

Jucker, Andreas H.

1997. The discourse markerwellin the history of English. English Language and Linguistics 1:1 ► pp. 91 ff.

Klein, Marion

1999.  In Text, Speech and Dialogue [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1692], ► pp. 274 ff.

Lam, Phoenix W. Y.

2010. Discourse Particles in Corpus Data and Textbooks: The Case of Well. Applied Linguistics 31:2 ► pp. 260 ff.

Marcus, Nicole E.

2009. Continuous Semantic Development of the Discourse MarkerWell. English Studies 90:2 ► pp. 214 ff.

Oishi, Etsuko

2020. Discourse markers as indicators of connectedness between expositive illocutionary acts. Pragmatics and Society 11:1 ► pp. 1 ff.

Oishi, Etsuko

2021.  In Inquiries in Philosophical Pragmatics [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 27], ► pp. 63 ff.

O’Neill, Barry

1991.  In Game Equilibrium Models IV, ► pp. 124 ff.

Palma-Fahey, María

2015.  In Pragmatic Markers in Irish English [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 258], ► pp. 348 ff.

van Elswyk, Peter

2020. Deceiving without answering. Philosophical Studies 177:5 ► pp. 1157 ff.

Álvarez González, Albert

2021.  In Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series, 219], ► pp. 314 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 april 2022. 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.