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 8 provides a report on versions of general extenders, that is, their translation equivalents, in languages other than English. There are studies of two Creoles, in Trinidad and Hawai‘i, with an analysis of the phonological processes involved in their development. Comparable expressions are documented in a variety of languages, including Brazilian Portuguese, French, German, Lithuanian, Persian, Russian, Spanish and Swedish. Notable differences between the expressions in Montreal French versus Parisian French are investigated. The relatively low frequency of disjunctive forms recorded in other languages is compared to English. Some observations are presented on where differences typically occur and the fact that several languages make use of interesting (non-referential) melodic expressions of a type not found in English, revealing some kind of aesthetic difference.

Chapter 7 describes the ways in which general extenders, as linguistic variables, align with social variables and become social markers in different communities. Among the variables investigated are age, gender, social class and regional variety. Most examples are from English, especially British English, together with the results from a sociolinguistic study of Montreal French. The different uses of general extenders in the academic and business registers are also described. The highest frequency forms in international varieties of English are reported, with lists of the most common expressions recorded in the USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.Differences between typical forms associated with southern versus northern England are noted, as well as aspects of Irish and Scottish English. The different methods of data collection employed in the past are reviewed, noting their potential effects on the nature of the data elicited, and advocating for an attempt at consensus on appropriate methodology going forward.

Chapter 2 presents a review of earlier studies that were mostly based on the assumption that general extenders are used with a referential function, are content-oriented, signal categorization and can be analyzed as set-marking tags or vague category identifiers. In the clearest cases, which are typically longer forms, they can be analyzed in terms of semantic features, shared with an antecedent, that identify the category involved. In other cases, there may be reference to an ad hoc category, also described as a non-lexicalized category, rather than one that is already lexicalized. The use of adjunctive forms as list completers is also normally interpreted in terms of set-marking.Adjunctive forms are also shown to be indicators of intertextuality. Long forms described as SKT tags incorporate reference to a "kind," indicating that classification or categorization is being signaled. A final section is dedicated to specific extenders, typically used with clear referential function.

Chapter 10 begins with two illustrations of the multifunctionality of general extenders in extracts from American English and Parisian French. Some relevant examples are presented and discussed to show that the structural position of general extenders is not necessarily utterance-final. In English, they can even be part of the subject noun phrase and, in other languages, they are often positioned inside utterances. In a function hitherto undocumented in English, some adjunctive forms are analyzed as associative plurals, used to reference a group of people associated with a particular individual as a focal referent. In a suggested area for further research, a substantial number of extender-type phrases with -else, previously unanalyzed, are illustrated and discussed. Another area where further research is encouraged is the investigation of the role of adjunctive forms in list completion with a much broader perspective than in earlier research.

Chapter 9 is devoted to aspects of general extender use by second language (L2) learners, with discussion of research and examples from first language (L1) speakers of Dutch, French, German, Persian and Swedish, plus data from English L1 speakers learning other languages. The phenomenon of low-frequency use of discourse/pragmatic features among L2 learners is noted. The more limited repertoire of L2 learners results in the complete absence of some forms and a reliance on, and hence overuse of, only a few expressions. Another aspect of L2 learner usage is the creation of novel expressions, some of which can be analyzed as interlanguage forms. Novel forms, and new uses of old forms, are also exemplified in the use of English as a lingua franca. Proposals for the inclusion of general extenders in L2 teaching are based on the explicit presentation and analysis of examples, with a contrastive approach discussed and exemplified. The chapter concludes with four exercises designed to raise awareness of how different English general extenders are typically used.

Chapter 5 reports on the uses of general extenders in terms of their textual function in the verbal record of interaction and their role in turn construction. An analysis is presented of some examples as performance fillers, placeholders or filled pauses used in the articulation of utterances, as well as their potential role for some speakers as oral punctuation marks, or punctors, all features that some would view negatively. Their role in the internal structure of utterances is described in terms of brackets and clusters, specifically as right brackets, and as elements in clusters with other pragmatic markers. Different forms are shown to have a role in information structure, including foregrounding, as well as in turn management. Distinct structural patterns can be observed in some cases when forms are used to indicate turn-completion and to mark topic shift, all described and exemplified.

Chapter 4 focuses on the uses of general extenders that are speaker-oriented, representing the speaker’s point of view, or the personal function, also known as subjectivity. They are also described as stance markers when used to express personal feelings, attitudes and evaluations. Clear examples of this function can be found in those adjunctive phrases with pejorative terms as proforms. Other notable examples involve extended descriptions that seem excessive, yet iconically represent an excess of work or problems. Speakers can also use some adjunctive forms to indicate that they think the accompanying information isextreme in some way or, within a formulaic construction, to express an idea that is unexpected. The disjunctive form or anything can be used to express the minimum expected and is the typical phrase used in a formulaic disclaimer. The different origins and functions of Whatever and or whatever are described and, along with some adjunctive forms used with a dismissive effect, are analyzed in terms of metapragmatic awareness.