Folk Pragmatics

Nancy Niedzielski & Dennis R. Preston
Table of contents

Folk Linguistics (FL) aims to discover and analyze beliefs about and attitudes towards language at every level of linguistic production, perception, and cognitive embedding by collecting and examining overt comment about it by non-linguists, goals first presented in Niedzielski and Preston (2000).

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

References

Bassili, J.N. & R.D. Brown
2005 Implicit and explicit attitudes: Research, challenges, theory. In D. Albarracín, B.T. Johnson & M.P. Zanna (eds.) The handbook of attitudes: 543–574. Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Edwards, J.R.
1982 Language attitudes and their implications among English speakers. In E.B. Ryan & H. Giles (eds.) Attitudes towards language variation: 20–33. Arnold. Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, H.
1966 A proposal for the study of folk-linguistics. In W. Bright (ed.) Sociolinguistics: 16–26. Mouton.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D.
1972 Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J.J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds.) Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication: 35–71. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Imai, T.
2000 Folk linguistics and conversational argument. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV). East Lansing, MI, October.
Kristiansen, T.
2006 Social meanings and subjective processes: A presentation of theories and methods from the Næstved studies. Paper presented at Approaches to the Study of Folk Linguistics, Sociolinguistic Awareness and Language Attitudes. Centre for Research on Bilingualism, Stockholm University.
Mey, J.
1993 Pragmatics. Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Milroy, L. & P. Mcclenaghan
1977 Stereotyped reactions to four educated accents in Ulster. Belfast Working Papers in Language and Linguistics 2: 1–11. Google Scholar
Niedzielski, N.
1999 The effects of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18(1): 62–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niedzielski, N. & D.R. Preston
2000 Folk linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Pasquale, M. & D.R. Preston
2006 The folk linguistics of language teaching and learning. Paper presented at the 2006 Second Language Research Forum (SLRF). University of Washington, Seattle. Google Scholar
Plichta, B.
2004 Interdisciplinary perspectives on the Northern Cities Chain Shift. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Michigan State University. Google Scholar
Preston, D.R.
1993 The uses of folk linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 3(2): 181–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 Content-oriented discourse analysis and folk linguistics. Language Sciences 16(2): 285–330. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1996 Whaddayaknow?: The modes of folk linguistic awareness. Language Awareness 5(1): 40–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D.
1985 Everyday argument: the organization of diversity in talk. In T.A. Van Dijk (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis 3: 35–46. Academic Press. Google Scholar
Sibata, T.
1971 Kotoba no kihan ishiki. Gengo Seikatsu 236: 14–21. [English quotations and page references are taken from this article translated as ‘Consciousness of language norms’ in T. Kunihiro, F. Inoue & D. Long (eds.) (1999) Takesi Sibata: Sociolinguistics in Japanese contexts: 371–377. Mouton de Gruyter.]Google Scholar
Silverstein, M.
1981 The limits of awareness. Sociolinguistic Working Paper No. 84. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Google Scholar
1993 Metapagmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In J. Lucy (ed.) Reflexive language: 3–58. Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar