Chapter 6 provides a summary of our cross-cultural pragmatic analytic framework. The framework breaks down cross-cultural pragmatic data into three units of analysis, expressions, speech acts and discourse, and provides a systematic approach to disentangle and compare these units across linguacultures.

In Chapter 10, we examine how cross-cultural pragmatics – in particular, cross-cultural research on expressions – can be applied to applied linguistics. More specifically, we explore how the study of expressions can provide insight into in-depth problems in language learning and language use, by examining cross-cultural pragmatic differences between the ways in which British learners of Chinese and Chinese learners of English evaluate a set of pragmatically important expressions in their target language. Chapter 10 reveals that the use of seemingly ‘simple’ pragmatically salient expressions such as sorry in English can cause significant difficulties for foreign language learners. In methodological terms, the present chapter first conducts an ancillary research, i.e. questionnaires, followed by a contrastive pragmatic exploration, i.e. interviews conducted with language learners.

Chapter 4 provides a summary of the datatypes studied in cross-cultural pragmatics and the fundamental methodologies used in the field. First, we systematically discuss different types of data, by arguing that the conventional categories of ‘naturally occurring’ and ‘elicited’ data are equally important for cross-cultural pragmatic research. The relationship between these two categories is particularly important to discuss: while using elicited data has been subject to major criticisms in the field of pragmatics, we promote an inclusive cross-cultural pragmatics approach, which should not exclude any datatype. Following our overview of datatypes, we summarise qualitative and quantitative approaches frequented in the field. The chapter explains in detail why it is pivotal for the cross-cultural pragmatician to attempt to combine qualitative and quantitative research if she wants to compare language use in a rigorous and replicable way.

Chapter 3 examines the intriguing question of how contrasting pragmatic data is possible. We argue that not every instance of interaction can be contrastively examined – rather we need to identify our tertium comparationis. In so doing, it is fundamental to consider the phenomenon of conventionalisation, i.e. the degree of recurrence of a particular pragmatic phenomenon in the language use and evaluations of members of a social group or a broader linguaculture. We argue that the cross-cultural pragmatician needs always to consider whether the phenomena to be compared are sufficiently conventionalised in the respective linguacultures or not. We discuss various situations, such as lingua franca contexts, in which conventionalisation can be a particularly complex issue to consider. We point out that conventionalisation manifests itself in two intrinsically interrelated types of language use, namely, convention and ritual, which play an important part in our analytic framework.

In Chapter 9 we examine discourse, the highest analytic unit. First, we argue that there is a major difference between the ways in which ‘discourse’ is investigated in cross-cultural pragmatics and some other fields such as Critical Discourse Analysis. To highlight differences between cross-cultural pragmatic research on discourse and Critical Discourse Analysis, we distinguish the term ‘cda’ from CDA, as an acronym from ‘contrastive discourse analysis’. We point out that discourse in cross-cultural pragmatics can be rigorously investigated through the logic of empirical research proposed by the philosopher Karl Popper. Following this, we examine various pragmatic units of analysis which are, at the same time, components of discourse itself, by arguing that discourse can only be approached rigorously across linguacultures if it is broken down into components, that is, if we systematise the units constituting data representing discourse. We also show how discourse as a departure point for analysis can be approached in cross-cultural pragmatics.

Chapter 14 summarises the contents of the book and proposes directions for future research.

In Chapter 1, we define the components and criteria of cross-cultural pragmatic analysis and introduce the basics of a model of cross-cultural pragmatic analysis, consisting of contrastive and ancillary pragmatic research. We also discuss the relationship between language and culture, and the ways in which cross-cultural pragmatic research examines the language and culture interface, by arguing that our cross-cultural pragmatic research only pursues interest in certain layers of culture due to our pursuit of replicability. Finally, we consider the reasons for the importance of doing cross-cultural pragmatic research. The chapter also provides a summary of the contents of the book and discusses various conventions that we follow across the chapters.

Chapter 5 examines how reporting clauses with the quotative verb SAY are emergent constructions, and offers a comparative analysis of such reporting clauses in the 1978–1988 and 2003–2013 data sets from qualitative and quantitative perspectives. The analytic dimensions studied include the forms, and the semantics of (1) the subject which gives the evidential source, (2) the verb which conveys the act of saying and serves as a quotative, and (3) the optional indirect object and (4) circumstance adverbials. In addition, some of the uses and functions of reporting clauses are discussed. Based on further frequency counts, the conventionalisation and grammaticalisation of two specific clausal patterns are explored in a detailed interactional study.

Chapter 3 characterises the interaction at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) as an institutionalised, parliamentary activity in change, in which members of the House of Commons have engaged since the institutionalisation of PMQs in 1961. It is shown that – due to various extralinguistic factors –PMQs has undergone rapid change during the span of 36 years covered by the study. However, it is argued that the institutional backbone of the activity, i.e. the physical set-up of the Chamber, the mediated question–answer sequences as well as the third-person address system, has remained largely the same, which warrants a comparative perspective on the 1978–1988 and 2003–2013 data sets as representatives of the same activity in different times.

Chapter 6 is concerned with the different multimodal formats of reported clauses in the 1978–1988 and 2003–2013 data sets: direct, indirect and 'in between' speech. It is discussed how these formats have changed with respect to their forms and distribution over turn types and speaker roles, and shown that speakers from both periods are strikingly conservative in the contextualisation of the quotations, with indirect and ‘literalised’ direct speech representing the two dominating practices. While indirect speech is most frequent in both data sets, the 2003–2013 sample shows a rise of ‘literalised’ direct speech across turn types and speaker roles. It is argued that this development is indicative of a general tendency to authentication and authorisation in reported speech, which is achieved through the visual manipulation of (original) documents, and the use of the verbal formula (AND) I QUOTE. The latter also serves to perform mixed quotations, a practice not found in 1978–1988. It is concluded that the comparison between the 1978–1988 and 2003–2013 points to a general tendency towards greater credibility enhancement, and a more interpersonal style in quotations.

Chapter 7 offers an analysis of the organisation of reported speech in rhetorical structures characteristic to political oratory. Lists and contrast relations are found in the 1978–1988 and 2003–2013 data sets to deliver reported speech, while combined structures (list, contrast, and puzzle–solution) are only performed in the 2003–2013 sample in this context. The use of these rhetorical structures constitutes a speaker’s resource to accomplish a denser packaging of incisive messages presented as reported speech, and the findings show that this rhetorical effect has even been increased through a tighter chunking of 2003–2013 reported speech in list constructions, and the overall use of combined structures. Crucially, these rhetorical devices are functional in forming hostile actions in an engaging way, which the speakers from 2003–2013 deploy to rally their audiences behind them, leading to an audible (and visible) opposition and polarisation in the House which communicates in a more accessible, i.e., popularised, style to mediated audiences.

Chapter 9 offers a summary of findings and general conclusions with regard to (1) evidentiality in English, (2) constructions, interactions, and change, (3) the House of Commons as a community of practice in change (and Prime Minister’s Questions as an activity in change), and (4) the potential for a new research strand, Diachronic Interactional (Socio-)Linguistics.