<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE root>
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">Russian Journal of Linguistics</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="en">Russian Journal of Linguistics</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Russian Journal of Linguistics</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn publication-format="print">2687-0088</issn><issn publication-format="electronic">2686-8024</issn><publisher><publisher-name xml:lang="en">Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University)</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">26797</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.22363/2687-0088-2021-25-2-369-390</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>Статьи</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="zh"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="article-type"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title xml:lang="en">A multidimensional model of interaction as a framework for a phenomenon-driven approach to communication</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Многомерная модель взаимодействия как основа феномено-ориентированного подхода к коммуникации</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6609-7090</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Mustajoki</surname><given-names>Arto</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Мустайоки</surname><given-names>Арто</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="en"><p>Professor Emeritus at the University of Helsinki (Finland). He works as a leading research fellow in the national research university Higher School of Economics (Moscow). His research interests include contemporary Russian, the theory of functional syntax, corpus linguistics, the Russian mentality, the causes and consequences of miscommunication and research ethics. Mustajoki has also published various teaching materials for learning Russian and popularised books for the public. He is vice-president of the International Assosiation of Teachers of Russian language and literature.</p></bio><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>почетный профессор Хельсинского университета (Финляндия), главный научный сотрудник Национального исследовательского университета «Высшая школа экономики», вице-президент Международной ассоциации преподавателей русского языка и литературы (МАПРЯЛ). Сфера его научных интересов включает современный русский язык, теорию функционального синтаксиса, корпусную лингвистику, русскую ментальность, причины и последствия непонимания в коммуникации, исследовательскую этику. Он также является автором учебных материалов по русскому языку и научно-популярных книг.</p></bio><email>arto.mustajoki@helsinki.fi</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff1"><aff><institution xml:lang="en">National Research University “Higher School of Economics”</institution></aff><aff><institution xml:lang="ru">Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»</institution></aff></aff-alternatives><aff-alternatives id="aff2"><aff><institution xml:lang="en">University of Helsinki</institution></aff><aff><institution xml:lang="ru">Хельсинкский университет</institution></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2021-06-23" publication-format="electronic"><day>23</day><month>06</month><year>2021</year></pub-date><volume>25</volume><issue>2</issue><issue-title xml:lang="en">QS Subject Focus Summit 2020 on Modern Languages and Linguistics</issue-title><issue-title xml:lang="ru">QS саммит 2020 по предметным областям «Современные языки» и «Лингвистика»</issue-title><fpage>369</fpage><lpage>390</lpage><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2021-06-23"><day>23</day><month>06</month><year>2021</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement xml:lang="en">Copyright ©; 2021, Mustajoki A.</copyright-statement><copyright-statement xml:lang="ru">Copyright ©; 2021, Мустайоки А.</copyright-statement><copyright-statement xml:lang="zh">Copyright ©; 2021, Mustajoki A.</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2021</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Mustajoki A.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Мустайоки А.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="zh">Mustajoki A.</copyright-holder><ali:free_to_read xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/"/><license><ali:license_ref xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0</ali:license_ref></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://journals.rudn.ru/linguistics/article/view/26797">https://journals.rudn.ru/linguistics/article/view/26797</self-uri><abstract xml:lang="en"><p style="text-align: justify;">Interaction between people is a cornerstone of being human. Despite huge developments in languages and communicative skills, interaction often fails, which causes problems and costs in everyday life and work. An inability to conduct dialogue also produces conflicts between groups of people, states and religions. Therefore, there are good reasons to claim that miscommunication and failures in interaction are among the most serious problems in the world. Researchers from different fields - linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology, brain research, philosophy - have tried to tackle this complex phenomenon. Their method-driven approaches enrich our understanding of the features of interaction in many ways. However, what is lacking is an understanding of the very essence of interaction, which needs a more holistic, phenomenon-driven approach. The aim of this paper is to show that the only way to reach this goal is multidisciplinarity, that is, using the results and methods of different fields of research. This is not an easy goal and task because the way of thinking and doing research varies greatly discipline-wise. A further obstacle is the researchers’ training, which, as a rule, focuses on the tradition of only one field of research. The Multidimensional Model of Interaction provides a good framework for a more holistic approach to interaction by viewing the complex phenomenon from different angles. The model includes various phases of the process of interaction, beginning with the choice of the topic by the speaker and ending with identification of the reference by the recipient, as well as the mental worlds of the interlocutors (knowledge, attitudes, values, emotional state etc.), recipient design (accommodation of speech) and external circumstances.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="ru"><p style="text-align: justify;">Взаимодействие между людьми - основа принадлежности к человеческому роду. Несмотря на огромные изменения в языках и коммуникативных навыках, интеракции часто оказываются неудачными, что создает проблемы в быту и на работе. Неспособность вести диалог - тоже человеческая черта, которая продуцирует конфликты между людьми, государствами и религиями. В связи с этим есть основания утверждать, что ошибки и сбои в коммуникации относятся к числу самых серьезных проблем мира. Ученые из разных областей знания участвуют в изучении этого сложного явления - лингвистики, социологии, антропологии, психологии. Их подходы, ориентированные на исследовательские методы, во многом обогащают наше понимание различных аспектов интеракции. Однако этим подходам недостает понимания самой сути интеракции, для чего необходим более холистический подход, ориентированный на явления. Цель данной статьи - показать, что единственный способ достичь этой цели - мультидисциплинарность, то есть использование результатов и методов различных областей исследования. Это непростая задача, потому что способы мышления и проведения исследования в разных науках отличаются друг от друга. Еще одно препятствие - обучение исследователей, которое, как правило, опирается на традиции только одной научной дисциплины. «Многомерная модель взаимодействия» обеспечивает хорошую основу для системного холистического подхода к взаимодействию, давая возможность рассмотреть это сложное явление с различных точек зрения. Модель включает различные фазы процесса вазимодействия, начиная с выбора темы со стороны говорящего и заканчивая определением референции со стороны реципиента, а также ментальные миры собеседников (знания, отношения, ценности, эмоциональное состояние и т.д.), приспособление речи к реципиенту (реципиент-дизайн) и внешние обстоятельства.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>interaction</kwd><kwd>phenomenon-driven research</kwd><kwd>multidisciplinarity</kwd><kwd>multidimensional model of interaction</kwd><kwd>miscommunication</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>интеракция</kwd><kwd>феномено-ориентированное исследование</kwd><kwd>мультидисциплинарность</kwd><kwd>многомерная модель интеракции</kwd><kwd>коммуникативные неудачи</kwd></kwd-group><funding-group/></article-meta></front><body></body><back><ref-list><ref id="B1"><label>1.</label><mixed-citation>Andor, Jozsef. 2004. The master and his performance: An interview with Noam Chomsky, Intercultural Pragmatics 1 (1). 93-111.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><label>2.</label><mixed-citation>Bara, Bruno G. 2011. Cognitive pragmatics: The mental process of communication. Intercultural Pragmatics 8 (3). 443-485. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2011.020</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><label>3.</label><mixed-citation>Bargh, John A. &amp; Tanya L. Chartrand. 1999. The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist 54. 462-476.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><label>4.</label><mixed-citation>Blokpoel, Mark, Marlieke van Kesteren, Arjen Stolk, Pim Haselager, Ivan Toni &amp; Iris van Rooij. 2012. Recipient design in human communication: Simple heuristics or perspective taking? Frontiers of Human Neuroscience 6, article 253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00253</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><label>5.</label><mixed-citation>Börjesson, Kristin. 2011. The Notions of Literal and Non-literal Meaning in Semantics and Pragmatics. Dr. Dissertation. Universität Leipzig.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><label>6.</label><mixed-citation>Bremer, Katrina &amp; Margaret Simonot. 1996. Preventing problems of understanding. In Katharina Bremer, Peter Broeder, Celia Roberts, Margaret Simonot &amp; Marie-Thérèse Vasseur (eds.), Achieving understanding: Discourse in intercultural encounters, 159-180. London: Longman.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><label>7.</label><mixed-citation>Brennan, Susan E. &amp; Michael Schober. 2001. How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language 44. 274-296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2753</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><label>8.</label><mixed-citation>Carston, Robyn. 2013. Word meaning, what is said and explicature. In Carlo Penco &amp; Filippo Domaneschi (eds.), What is said and what is not, 175-204. Stanford: CSLI Publications.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><label>9.</label><mixed-citation>Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><label>10.</label><mixed-citation>Clark, Herbert H. &amp; Meredyth A. Krych. 2004. Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language 50. 62-81. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.004</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><label>11.</label><mixed-citation>Cooney, Gus, Adam M. Mastroianni, Nicole Abi-Esber &amp; Alison Wood Brooks. 2020. The many minds problem: disclosure in dyadic versus group conversation. Current Opinion in Psychology 31. 22-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.032</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><label>12.</label><mixed-citation>Do, Monica L., Anna Papafragou &amp; John Trueswell. 2020. Cognitive and pragmatic factors in language production: Evidence from source-goal motion events. Cognitio 205. 10477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104447</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><label>13.</label><mixed-citation>Dobrick, Martin. 1985. Gegenseitiges (Miss-)Verstehen in der dyadischen Kommunikation [Mutual (mis)understanding in a dyadic communication]. Münster: Aschendorff.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><label>14.</label><mixed-citation>Epley, Nicholas. 2008. Solving the (real) other minds problem. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2 (3). 1455-1474.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><label>15.</label><mixed-citation>Ermakova, Olga &amp; Elena A. Zemskaya. On constructing a typology of communicative failures on the basis of authentic Russian material. In E.A. Zemkaya (ed.), The Russian language and its functioning: a communicative-pragmatic aspect, 90-157. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><label>16.</label><mixed-citation>Falkner, Wolfgang. 1997. Verstehen, Missverstehen und Missverständnisse: Untersuchungen an einem Korpus englischer und deutscher Beispiele [Understanding, misunderstanding and miscommunication: studies on the basis of corpus with English and German instances]. Tübingen: Niemayer.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><label>17.</label><mixed-citation>Firth, Alan. 2009. The lingua franca factor. Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (2). 147-170. DOI: https://10.1515/IPRG.2009.009</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><label>18.</label><mixed-citation>Fiske, Susan T., Lasana T. Harris, Ann Marie Russell &amp; Nicole Shelton. 2009. Divergent social, realities, depending on where you sit: Perspectives from the stereotypes content model. In Stéphanie Demoulin, Jacques-Philippe Leyens &amp; John F. Dovidio (eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities, 173-189. New York &amp; London: Routledge.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><label>19.</label><mixed-citation>Gallois, Cindy, Tania Ogay &amp; Howard Giles. 2005. Communication Accommodation Theory: A look back and a look ahead. In William B. Gudykunst (eds.), Theorizing about intercultural communication, 121-148. Thousand Oaks: Sage.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><label>20.</label><mixed-citation>Gander, Anna Jia. 2018. Understanding in Real-Time Communication: Micro-Feedback and Meaning Repair in Face-to-Face and Video-Mediated Intercultural Interactions. PhD Dissertation. University of Gothenburg. Dept. of Applied Information Technology.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><label>21.</label><mixed-citation>Gasiorek Jessica, Cindy Gallois, Herbert Pierson, Jon F. NussBaum &amp; Jake Harwood. 2019. Advanced theory in language, communication, and intergroup relations. In Jake Harwood, Jessica Gasiorek, Herbert Pierson, Jon F. NussBaum &amp; Cidy Gallois (eds.), Language, communication, and intergroup relations: A celebration of the scholarship of Howard Giles, 291-305. New York &amp; London: Routledge.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><label>22.</label><mixed-citation>Gilbert, Daniel T., Brett W. Pelham &amp; Douglas S. Krull. 1988. On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 (5). 733-740.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><label>23.</label><mixed-citation>Gray, Heather M., Kurt Gray &amp; Daniel M. Wegner. 2007. Dimensions of mind perception. Science 315, 619. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><label>24.</label><mixed-citation>Greenwald, Anthony G. &amp; Mahzarin R. Banaji. 1995. Implicit social cognition: Attitude, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review 102 (1). 4-27.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B25"><label>25.</label><mixed-citation>Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole &amp; Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts. 41-58. New York: Academic Press.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B26"><label>26.</label><mixed-citation>Haugh, Michael &amp; M. Jaszczolt Kasia. 2012. Speaker intentions and intentionality. In Allan Keith &amp; Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, 87-112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B27"><label>27.</label><mixed-citation>Hautamäki, Antti. 2020. A New Approach to Epistemological Relativism based on the Concept of Points of View. Helsinki: Springer.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B28"><label>28.</label><mixed-citation>Hinnenkamp, Volker. 2001. Constructing misunderstanding as a cultural event. In Aldo di Luzio, Susanne Günthner &amp; Franca Orletti (eds.), Culture in communication: Analyses of intercultural situations, 211-243. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B29"><label>29.</label><mixed-citation>Horton, William S. &amp; Richard J. Gerrig. 2002. Speakers’ experiences and audience design: knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees. Journal of Memory and Language 47 (4). 589-606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00019-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B30"><label>30.</label><mixed-citation>Jucker, Andreas H. &amp; Larssyn Staley. 2017. (Im)politeness and developments in methodology. In Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh &amp; Dániel Kádár (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness, 403-429. Palgrave, London.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B31"><label>31.</label><mixed-citation>Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin Books.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B32"><label>32.</label><mixed-citation>Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Society 1 (1). 50-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B33"><label>33.</label><mixed-citation>Kecskes, Istvan. 2017. Implicitness in the use of situation-bound utterances: From lexis to discourse. In Piotr Cap &amp; Marta Dynel (eds.), Implicitness: From lexis to discourse, 201-215. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B34"><label>34.</label><mixed-citation>Kecskes, Istvan &amp; Fenghui Zhang. 2009. Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics &amp; Cognition 17 (2). 331-355. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/p&amp;c.17.2.06kec</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B35"><label>35.</label><mixed-citation>Keysar, Boaz. 2008. Egocentric processes in communication and miscommunication. In Istvan Kecskes &amp; Jacob Mey (eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer, 277-296. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B36"><label>36.</label><mixed-citation>Keysar, Boaz &amp; Anne S. Henly. 2002. Speakers’ overestimation of their effectiveness. Psychological Science 13. 207-212.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B37"><label>37.</label><mixed-citation>Killingsworth, Matthew &amp; Daniel T. Gilbert. 2010. A wandering mind is an unhappy mind. Science 330. 932. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192439</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B38"><label>38.</label><mixed-citation>Kruger, Justin, Nicolas Epley, Jason Parker &amp; Zhi-Wen Ng. 2005. Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89 (6). 925-936. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.925</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B39"><label>39.</label><mixed-citation>Liddicoat, Anthony J. 2007. An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B40"><label>40.</label><mixed-citation>Linell, Per. 1995. Troubles with mutualities: Towards a dialogical theory of misunderstanding and miscommunication. In Ivana Marková, Carl Graumann &amp; Klaus Foppa (eds.), Mutualities in dialogue 176-213. Cambridge: University Press.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B41"><label>41.</label><mixed-citation>Maass, Anne. 1999. Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype perpetuation through language. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 31. 79-121.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B42"><label>42.</label><mixed-citation>Macagno, Fabricio. 2017. Evidence and presumptions for analysing and detecting misunderstandings. Pragmatics &amp; Cognition 24 (2). 263-296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17034.mac</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B43"><label>43.</label><mixed-citation>Mackenzie, J. Lachan &amp; Laura Alba-Juez (eds.). 2019. Emotion in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B44"><label>44.</label><mixed-citation>Martinez, Elyssa Kay V. 2018. A corpus-based analysis of tertiary students’ communication strategies. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development 3 (1). 760-766.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B45"><label>45.</label><mixed-citation>Mazeland, Harrie. 2006. Conversation analysis. In Keith Brown (eds.), Encyclopedia of language &amp; linguistics, 2nd edn., volume 3, 153-163. Oxford: Elsevier.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B46"><label>46.</label><mixed-citation>Mazzarella, Diana. 2013. ‘Optimal relevance’ as a pragmatic criterion: the role of epistemic vigilance. UCL Working.Papers. Linguist 25. 20-45.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B47"><label>47.</label><mixed-citation>Mazzarella, Diana. 2015. Pragmatic and epistemic vigilance: The development of sophisticated interpretative strategies. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15 (44). 183-199.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B48"><label>48.</label><mixed-citation>Mazzarella, Diana &amp; Nausicaa Pouscoulous. 2020. Pragmatics and epistemic vigilance: A developmental perspective. Mind &amp; Language 24 (2). 263-296.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B49"><label>49.</label><mixed-citation>Micklos, Ashley, Bradley Walker &amp; Nicolas Fay. 2020. Are people sensitive to problems in communication? Cognitive Science 44. e12816.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B50"><label>50.</label><mixed-citation>Mustajoki, Arto. 2006. The Integrum Database as a powerful tool in research on contemporary Russian. In Galina Nikiporec-Takigava (eds.), Integrum: tochnye metody i gumanitarnye nauki, 50-75. Moscow: Letnij sad.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B51"><label>51.</label><mixed-citation>Mustajoki, Arto. 2012. A Speaker-oriented multidimensional approach to risks and causes of miscommunication. Language and Dialogue 2. 216-242. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.2.2.03mus</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B52"><label>52.</label><mixed-citation>Mustajoki, Arto. 2013. Risks of miscommunication in various speech genres. In Elena Borisova &amp; Olga Souleimanova (eds.), Understanding by communication, 33-53. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/39226/Risks_of_miscommunication_in_various_speech_genres.pdf?sequence=2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B53"><label>53.</label><mixed-citation>Mustajoki, Arto. 2017a. The issue of theorizing: Object-of-study and methodology. In Edda Weigand (ed.), Language and dialogue: A handbook of key issues in the field, 234-250. New York: Routledge. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/297726</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B54"><label>54.</label><mixed-citation>Mustajoki, Arto. 2017b. Why is miscommunication more common in everyday life than in lingua franca conversation? In Istvan Kecskes &amp; Stavros Assimakopoulos (eds.), Current issues in intercultural pragmatics (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series), 55-74. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.274</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B55"><label>55.</label><mixed-citation>Mustajoki, Arto &amp; Alla Baikulova. 2020. The risks of misunderstandings in family discourse: home as a special space of interaction. Language and Dialogue 10 (3). 340-368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00074.mus</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B56"><label>56.</label><mixed-citation>Mustajoki, Arto &amp; Tatiana Sherstinova. 2017. The "Retrospective Commenting Method” for longitudinal recordings of everyday speech. In Alexey Karpov, Rodmonga Potapova &amp; Iosif Mporas (eds.), SPECOM 2017, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 10458, 1-9. NewYork: Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-66429-3_71</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B57"><label>57.</label><mixed-citation>Mustajoki, Arto, Tatiana Sherstinova &amp; Ulla Tuomarla. 2018. Types and functions of pseudodialogues. In Edda Weigand &amp; Istvan Kecskes (eds.), From Pragmatics to Dialogue, 189-215. Amsterdam / Philadephia: John Benjamins.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B58"><label>58.</label><mixed-citation>Newman-Norlund, Sarah E., Matthijs L. Noordzij, Roger D. Newman-Norlund, Inge A.C. Volman, Jan Peter de Ruiter, Peter Hagoort &amp; Ivan Toni. 2009. Recipient design in tacit communication. Cognition 111. 46-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition. 2008.12.004</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B59"><label>59.</label><mixed-citation>Nickerson, Raymond S. 1999. How we know - and sometimes misjudge - what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin 125 (6). 737-759.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B60"><label>60.</label><mixed-citation>Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2018. Pragmatic competence injustice. Social Epistemology 32 (3). 143-163.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B61"><label>61.</label><mixed-citation>Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2020. Evidential particles and epistemic vigilance. In Agnieszka Piskorska (ed.), Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics, 69-83. Amsterdam (Philadelphia): John Benjamins.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B62"><label>62.</label><mixed-citation>Palomares, Nicholas A., Howard Giles, Jordan Soliz &amp; Cindy Gallois. 2016. Intergroup accommodation, social categories, and identities. In Howard Giles (eds.), Communication Accommodation Theory: Negotiating Personal Relationships and Social Identities Across Contexts, 123-151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B63"><label>63.</label><mixed-citation>Peräkylä, Anssi &amp; Marja-Leena Sorojen (eds.). 2012. Emotion in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B64"><label>64.</label><mixed-citation>Pierce-Grove, Ri. 2016. Conclusion: Making the new status quo: social media in education. In Christine Greenhow, Julia Sonnevend &amp; Colin Agur (eds.), Education and Social Media: Toward a Digital Future, 239-246, Cambridge (Massachusetts), London: The MIT Press.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B65"><label>65.</label><mixed-citation>Polikarpov, A. O. 2012. On systemic relationship in the active part of word comprehension by individuals and society. In N. D. Golev (ed.), Everyday Metalinguistic Cognition: Ontological and Gnoseological Aspects, vol. 4, 175-189. Kemorovo: Kemerovskii gos. universitet. (In Russ.)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B66"><label>66.</label><mixed-citation>Rabagliati, Hugh &amp; Alexander Robertson. 2016. How do children learn to avoid referential ambiguity? Insights from eyetracking. Journal of Memory and Language 94. 15-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.09.007</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B67"><label>67.</label><mixed-citation>Rakić, Tamara &amp; Anne Maass. 2019. Communicating between groups, communicating about groups. In Jake Harwood, Jessica Gasiorek, Herbert Pierson, Jon F. NussBaum &amp; Cindy Gallois (eds.), Language, Communication, and Intergroup Relations: A Celebration of the Scholarship of Howard Giles, 66-97. New York &amp; London: Routledge.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B68"><label>68.</label><mixed-citation>Roberts, Gareth, Benjamin Langstein &amp; Bruno Galantucci. 2016. (In)sensitivity to incoherence in human communication. Language &amp; Communication 47. 15-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.11.001</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B69"><label>69.</label><mixed-citation>Roßnagel, Christian. 2000. Cognitive load and perspective-taking: Applying the automatic controlled distinction to verbal communication. European Journal of Social Psychology 30 (3). 429-445.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B70"><label>70.</label><mixed-citation>Ryan, Jonathon. 2020. Under-explicit and minimally explicit reference: Evidence from a longitudinal case study. In Jonathon Ryan &amp; Peter Crosthwaite (eds.), Referring in a Second Language: Studies on Reference to Person in a Multilingual World, 100-118. London: Routledge.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B71"><label>71.</label><mixed-citation>Sacks, Harvey &amp; Emmanuel A. Schegloff, 1979. Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In George Psathas (eds.), Everyday Language, 15-21. New York: Irvington.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B72"><label>72.</label><mixed-citation>Sherstinova, Tatiana. 2015. Macro episodes of Russian everyday oral communication: Towards pragmatic annotation of the ORD speech corpus. In Alexey Ronzhin, Rodmonga Potapova &amp; Nikos Fakotakis (eds.), Speech and computer, SPECOM 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9391, 268-276. New York: Springer.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B73"><label>73.</label><mixed-citation>Spencer-Oatey, Helen &amp; Peter Franklin. 2009. Intercultural Interaction: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Intercultural Communication. Palgrave: MacMillian.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B74"><label>74.</label><mixed-citation>Sperber, Dan &amp; Deirdre Wilson (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B75"><label>75.</label><mixed-citation>Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi &amp; Deirdre Wilson. 2010. Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language 25 (4). 359-393.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B76"><label>76.</label><mixed-citation>Stanovich, Keith E. 2018. Miserliness in human cognition. The interaction of detection, override and mindware. Thinking &amp; Reasoning 24 (3). 423-444. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2018.1459314</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B77"><label>77.</label><mixed-citation>Stevanovic, Melisa &amp; Anssi Peräkylä, 2012. Deontic authority in interaction: the right to announce, propose and decide. Research on Language &amp; Social Interaction 45 (3). 297-321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B78"><label>78.</label><mixed-citation>Tiedt, Hannes O., Felicitas Ehlen &amp; Fabian Klostermann. 2020. Age-related dissociation of N400 effect and lexical priming. Scientific reports 10, 20291. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77116-9</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B79"><label>79.</label><mixed-citation>Todd, Andrew R., Matthias Forstmann, Pascal Burgmer, Alison Wood-Brooks &amp; Adam D. Galinsky. 2015. Anxious and egocentric. How specific emotions influence perspective taking. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General 144 (2). 374-391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000048</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B80"><label>80.</label><mixed-citation>Van Dijk, Teun A. 2006. Discourse, context and cognition. Discourse Studies 8. 159-176.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B81"><label>81.</label><mixed-citation>Vogels, Jorrig, David M. Howcroft, Elli Tourtouri &amp; Vera Demberg. 2020. How speakers adapt object descriptions to listeners under load. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 35 (1). 78-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1648839</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B82"><label>82.</label><mixed-citation>Waytz, Adam, Kurt Gray, Nicholas Epley &amp; Daniel M. Wegner. 2010. Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14. 383-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B83"><label>83.</label><mixed-citation>Weigand, Edda. 2004. Emotions: The simple and the complex. In Edda Weigand (eds.), Emotions in dialogic interaction, 3-31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B84"><label>84.</label><mixed-citation>Weigand, Edda. 2011. Paradigm changes in linguistics: from reductionism to holism. Language Sciences 33. 544-549. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.04.031</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B85"><label>85.</label><mixed-citation>UIA 2000 Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential. http://encyclopedia. uia.org/en (accessed: 25 February 2021)</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>
