Corpus pragmatics

Andreas H. Jucker
Table of contents

In a broad definition, corpus pragmatics refers to studies of language use that employ large, computer-readable collections of language. It is, thus, part of empirical and data-based pragmatics and contrasts with philosophical approaches to pragmatics. The last twenty years or so have seen a massive increase in the number of corpora compiled by linguists for all sorts of linguistic analyses (see Aarts 2011 for an up-to-date overview of corpora), and in recent years pragmaticists have started to take advantage of these corpora.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Aarts, J.
2011 “Corpus analysis.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by J.-O. Östman and J. Verschueren. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K.
1996 Conversational Routines in English. Convention and Creativity. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2002 English Discourse Particles. Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “At the interface between grammar and discourse: A corpus-based study of some pragmatic markers.” In Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics. A Mutualistic Entente, ed. by J. Romero-Trillo, 11–36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “Interjections in the COLT Corpus.” In Studies in Linguistics offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, ed. by S. Slembrouck, M. Taverniers and M. Herreweghe, 11–19. Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
Andersen, G.
2001 Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. A Relevance-theoretic Approach to the Language of Adolescents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Archer, D. and J. Culpeper
2003 “Sociopragmatic annotation: New directions and possibilities in historical corpus linguistics.” In Corpus Linguistics by the Lune: A Festschrift for Geoffrey Leech, ed. by A. Wilson, P. Rayson and T. Mcenery, 37–58. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2009 “Identifying ‘key’ sociophilological usage in plays and trial proceedings (1640–1760): An empirical approach via corpus annotation.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 10 (2): 286–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Archer, D., J. Culpeper and M. Davies
2008 “Pragmatic annotation.” In Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook. Volume 1 (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 29/1), ed. by A. Lüdeling and M. Kytö, 613–642. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J.
2009 Oxford English Corpus” In Contemporary Corpus Linguistics, ed. by Paul Baker, 64–86. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2011 Impoliteness. Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. and M. Kytö
2010 Early Modern English Dialogues. Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deutschmann, M.
2003 Apologising in British English. (Skrifter från moderna språk 10). Umeå: Institutionen för moderna språk, Umeå University.Google Scholar
Jaworski, A., N. Coupland and D. Galasiński
2004 “Metalanguage: Why now?” In Metalanguage. Social and Ideological Perspectives, ed. by A. Jaworski, N. Coupland and D. Galasiński, 3–10. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H.
2009 “Speech act research between armchair, field and laboratory: The case of compliments.” Journal of Pragmatics 41 (8): 1611–1635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A.H., G. Schneider, I. Taavitsainen and B. Breustedt
2008 “Fishing for compliments: Precision and recall in corpus-linguistic compliment research.” In Speech Acts in the History of English, ed. by A. H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen, 273–294. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and I. Taavitsainen
2008 “Apologies in the history of English: Routinized and lexicalized expressions of responsibility and regret.” In Speech Acts in the History of English, ed. by A. H. Jucker and I. Taavitsainen, 229–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
forthc.) “Complimenting in the history of American English: A metacommunicative expression analysis.” In Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics ed. by I. Taavitsainen and A. H. Jucker Amsterdam John Benjamins DOI logo
Jucker, A. H., I. Taavitsainen and G. Schneider
2012 “Semantic corpus trawling: Expressions of ‘courtesy’ and ‘politeness’ in the Helsinki Corpus.” In Developing Corpus Methodology for Historical Pragmatics (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 11), ed. by Carla Suhr and Irma Taavitsainen. Helsinki: Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English. Available online at〈http://​www​.helsinki​.fi​/varieng​/journal​/volumes​/11​/prag​/jucker​_taavitsainen​_schneider/〉. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kohnen, T.
2008 “Tracing directives through text and time: Towards a methodology of a corpus-based diachronic speech-act analysis.” In Speech Acts in the History of English (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 176), ed. by A. H. Jucker and I. Taavitsainen, 295–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manes, J. and N. Wolfson
1981 “The compliment formula.” In Conversational Routine. Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 115–132. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mcenery, T. and A. Hardie
2012 Corpus Linguistics. Method, Theory and Practice. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mcenery, T., R. Xiao and Y. Tono
2006 Corpus-Based Language Studies. An Advanced Resource Book. (Routledge Applied Linguistics). London: Francis and Taylor.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. and H. Tissari
2010 “Contextualising eighteenth-century politeness: Social distinction and metaphorical levelling.” In Eighteenth-Century English: Ideology and Change (Studies in English Language), ed. by R. Hickey, 133–158. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partington, A.
2004 “ Corpora and discourse, a most congruous beast.” In Corpora and Discourse. (Studies in Language and Communication 9). ed. by A. Partington, J. Morley and L. Haarman, 11–20. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J.
2008 “Introduction: Pragmatics and corpus linguistics – a mutualistic entente.” In Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics. A Mutualistic Entente, ed. by J. Romero-Trillo, 1–10. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D.
1987 Discourse Markers. (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics, 5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tognini-Bonelli, E.
2001 Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tottie, G.
2011  Uh and Um as sociolinguistic markers in British English.” The International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16: 173–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valkonen, P.
2008 “Showing a little promise: Identifying and retrieving explicit illocutionary acts from a corpus of written prose.” In Speech Acts in the History of English (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 176), ed. by A. H. Jucker and I. Taavitsainen, 247–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weisser, M.
2003 “SPAACy: A semi-automated tool for annotating dialogue acts.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (1): 63–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
1987 English Speech Act Verbs: A Semantic Dictionary. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar