Addison, Joseph. The Spectator. London
1711Retrieved from Morley, Henry (ed), The Spectator . A New Edition Reproducing the Original Text Both as First Issued and as Corrected by its Authors with Introduction, Notes and Index edited by Henry Morley. Volume I 1891 [URL]
Alker, Sharon, and Holly Faith Nelson
2011 “Pamphlet Wars: Topological Union in Defoe’s Anglo-Scottish Works.” In Positioning Daniel Defoe’s Non-Fiction. Form, Function and Genre, ed. by Aino Makikalli, and Andreas Mueller, 39–58. Newcastle-on-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Barker, Hannah
2000Newspapers, Politics and English Society, 1695–1855. Harlow: Longman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Peter, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, Jonathan
2011Politicians and Rhetoric. The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. London: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul
2004Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crespo-Fernández, Eliecer
2005 “Euphemistic Strategies in Politeness and Face Concerns.” Pragmalingüística 13: 77–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crespo-Fernández, Eliecer, and Rosa María López-Campillo
2011 “Persuasive Rhetoric in George Ridpath’s Political Writings”. ES: Revista de Filología Inglesa 32: 43–66.Google Scholar
Downie, James Alan
1979Robert Harley and the Press. Propaganda and Public Opinion in the Age of Swift and Defoe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
1992Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
2005 “Critical Discourse Analysis, Organization Discourse and Organizational Change.” Organization Studies 26: 915–935. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Getkham, Kunyarut
2011 “Hedging Devices in Applied Linguistics Research Articles.” Interdisciplinary Discourses in Language and Communication, 141–154.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erwin
1955 “On Face-work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.” Psychiatry 18: 213–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
1975 “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics. Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan
1991Language, Context, and Text. Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Tim
1993Politics under the Later Stuarts. Party Conflict in a Divided Society. 1660–1715. Harlow: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hellín García, María José
2009 “Fight Metaphors in Spain’s Presidential Speeches: J. L. Rodríguez Zapatero (2004–2007).” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 22: 127–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet
1984 “Modifying Illocutionary Force.” Journal of Pragmatics 8: 345–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoppit, Julian
2000A Land of Liberty? England 1689–1727. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken
1998Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kozubíková Šandová, Jana
2014Speaker Involvement in Political Interviews. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Krzyżanowski, Michal, and Bernard Forchtner
2016 “Theories and Concepts in Critical Discourse Studies: Facing Challenges, Moving beyond Foundations.” Discourse and Society 7 (3): 253–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
1983Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leslie, Charles
1750A View of the Times, their Principles and Practices, in the First Volume of the Rehearsals. London.Google Scholar
López-Campillo, Rosa María
2015Imagen y propaganda política en la guerra de Sucesión española: Defoe al servicio del gobierno de Ana Estuardo [Image and political propaganda during the War of the Spanish Sucession: Defoe at the service of Anne Stuart’s Ministry]. Madrid: Silex.Google Scholar
2018 “Political Discourse in John Tutchin: Hedges as Euphemistic and Persuasive Devices”. In Taboo in Discourse. Studies on Attenuation and Offence in Communication, ed. by Eliecer Crespo-Fernández, 77–100. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
McKim, Anne M.
2008 “War of Words. Daniel Defoe and the 1707 Act of Union.” Journal of Irish Scottish Studies 1 (2): 29–44.Google Scholar
Müllenbrock, Heinz-Joachim
1997The Culture of Contention. A Rhetorical Analysis of the Public Controversy about the Ending of the War of Spanish Succession, 1710–1713. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
Payne, William Lytton
1947Mr Review. Daniel Defoe as Author of The Review. New York: King’s Crown Press.Google Scholar
Peacey, James
2004Politicians and Pamphleteers. Propaganda during the English Civil Wars and Interregnum. Cornwall: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Pritchard, Penny
2011 “Voices of Dissent: Rhetorical Strategies in Defoe’s Writing before 1719.” In Positioning Daniel Defoe’s Non-Fiction. Form, Function and Genre, ed. by Aino Makikalli, and Andreas Mueller, 17–38. Newcastle-on-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, Françoise
1994 “Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical English Written Discourse.” English for Specific Purposes 13 (2): 149–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 “I Think that Perhaps You Should: A Study of Hedges in Written Discourse.” Functional Approaches to Written Texts: Classroom Applications 1: 127–143.Google Scholar
Speck, W. A.
1970Tory and Whig. The Struggle in the Constituencies 1701–1715. Macmillan: London.Google Scholar
Statt, Daniel
1991 “Daniel Defoe and Immigration.” Eighteenth-Century Studies 24 (3): 293–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Urbanová, Ludmila
2003On Expressing Meaning in English Conversation: Semantic Indeterminacy. Brno: Masarykova Univerzita.Google Scholar
Waddell, Neal, and Bernard McKenna
2009 “The Colour of Rhetoric in the Contemporary Agora.” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 22: 271–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilamová, Sirma
2005 “On the Function of Hedging in Negatively Polite Discourse.” Brno Studies in English 31: 85–93.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth
2009 “What CDA is about. A Summary of its History, Important Concepts and Developments.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd ed), ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 1–13. London: SAGE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer
2015 “Critical Discourse Studies: History, Agenda, Theory and Methodology”. In Methods of Critical Discourse Studies, ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 1–22. London: SAGE.Google Scholar