Cover not available
Part of
It's different with you: Contrastive perspectives on address research
Edited by Nicole Baumgarten and Roel Vismans
[Topics in Address Research 5] 2023
► pp. 1–12

Introduction

| University of Sheffield
| University of Sheffield
Article outline
  • 1.Preamble
  • 2.Contrastiveness and address research
  • 3.Contrast(iveness) in this volume
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 September 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tar.5.intro
References (16)
References
Aijmer, Karin (ed.). 2011. Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin, Juliane House, Dániel Z. Kádár, & Hong Liu. 2020. Editorial. Contrastive Pragmatics. 1(1). vii–viii. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987 [1978]. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger & Albert Gilman. 1960. The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity. In Thomas Albert Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language, 253–276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cogo, Alessia & Juliane House. 2017. Intercultural pragmatics. In Anne Barron, Yueguo Gu & Gerard Steen (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics, 168–183. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Vogelaer, Gunther, Dietha Koster & Torsten Leuschner. 2020. Introduction – German and Dutch in contrast: Synchronic, diachronic and psycholinguistic perspectives. In De Vogelaer, Gunther, Dietha Koster & Torsten Leuschner (eds.) German and Dutch in Contrast: Synchronic, Diachronic and Psycholinguistic Perspectives, 1–12. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2000. Ethnographische Gesprächsanalyse: Zu Nutzen und Notwendigkeit von Ethnographie für die Konversationsanalyse [Ethnographic discourse analysis: On the usefulness and necessity of ethnography for conversation analysis]. Gesprächsforschung-Online Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion [Conversation Research – Online Journal of Verbal Interaction] 1. 96–124.Google Scholar
Gaeta Livio. 2020. English as a bridge: An L3-approach. In Michalis Georgiafentis, Giannoula Giannoulopoulou, Maria Koliopoulou & Angeliki Tsokoglou (eds.). Contrastive Studies in Morphology and Syntax, 26–44. London: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1955. On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry 18(3). 213–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hüning, Matthias, Ulrike Vogl, Ton van der Wouden & Arie Verhagen (eds.). 2006. Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Handelingen van de workshop op 30 september en 1 oktober 2007 aan de Freie Universität Berlin [Dutch between German and English. Proceedings of the workshop on 30 September and 1 October 2007 at the Freie Universität Berlin]. Leiden: SNL.Google Scholar
Koliopoulou, Maria & Torsten Leuschner. 2014. Einleitung: Perspektiven der kontrastiven Linguistik [Introduction: Perspectives of contrastive linguistics]. Germanistische Mitteilungen [Germanic Notifications] 40(1). 5–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 2012. Contrastive linguistics and language comparison. Languages in Contrast 12(2). 3–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olesky, Wieslaw (ed.). 1989. Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruigendijk, Esther, Freek Van de Velde & Roel Vismans. 2012. Germanic sandwich 2010: Dutch between English and German. Leuvense Bijdragen (Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology) 98(1). 1–3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan. 2012. From contrastive linguistics to linguistic typology. Languages in Contrast 12(1). 69–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vismans, Roel, Matthias Hüning & Fred Weerman. 2010. Guest Editors’ Preface. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 22(4). 297–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar