Article published in:
Internet Pragmatics
Vol. 2:1 (2019) ► pp. 112135
References

References

Anderson, Benedict
2006Imagined Communities. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Androutsopoulos, Jannis
2011 “From variation to heteroglossia in the study of computer-mediated discourse.” In Digital Discourse, ed. by Crispin Thurlow, and Kristine Mroczek, 277–298. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013 “Participatory culture and metalinguistic discourse: Performing and negotiating German dialects on YouTube.” In Discourse 2.0: Language and New Media, ed. by Deborah Tanner, and Anna Marie Trester, 47–71. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot
1983L’Argumentation dans la Langue [Argumentation in Language]. Brussels: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Austin, John L.
1975How to do Things with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bassett, Elizabeth H., and Kate O’Riordan
2002 “Ethics of internet research: Contesting the human subjects research model.” Ethics and Information Technology 4: 233–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bijker, Wiebe E.
1987 “The social construction of Bakelite: Toward a theory of invention.” In The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, ed. by Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor Pinch, 159–187. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Burgess, Jean E., and Joshua B. Green
2009YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Chun, Elaine, and Keith Walters
2011 “Orienting to Arab orientalisms: Language, race and humor in a YouTube video.” In Digital Discourse: Language in the New Media, ed. by Crispin Thurlow, and Kristine Mroczek, 251–273, Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cornillie, Bert
2009 “Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different categories.” Functions of Language 16 (1): 44–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W.
2007 “The stance triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse, ed. by Robert Englebreton, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald
1984Le dire et le dit [What is Meant and What is Said]. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
[ p. 133 ]
Fetzer, Anita
2014 “Foregrounding evidentiality in (English) academic discourse: Patterned co-occurrences of the sensory perception verbs seem and appear .” Intercultural Pragmatics 11(3): 333–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, and Etsuko Oishi
2014 “Evidentiality in discourse.” Intercultural Pragmatics 11(3): 321–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, Elda Weizman, and Laurence N. Berlin
(eds.) 2015The Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-Ups. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul
1975 “Logic and conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ivković, Dejan
2013 “The Eurovision Song Contest on YouTube: A corpus-based analysis of language attitudes.” Language at Internet 10, Article 1. http://​www​.languageatinternet​.org​/articles​/2013​/Ivkovic (accessed 10 December 2017).
Jaffe, Alexandra
2009Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kozinets, Robert V.
2010Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Landert, Daniela, and Andreas H. Jucker
2011 “Private and public in mass media communication: From letters to the editor to online commentaries.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1422–1434. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per
1998Approaching Dialogue: Talk, Interaction and Context in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Livingstone, Sonia, and Peter Lunt
1994Talk on Television: Audience Participation and Public Talk. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Livnat, Zohar
2012 “Follow-ups in a loose argumentative context: The pragmatic effectiveness of figurative analogy.” In Proceedings of the ESF Strategic Workshop on Follow-Ups Across Discourse Domains: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions, Würzburg (Germany), 31 May – 2 June 2012, ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman, and Elisabeth Reber, 165–177. Würzburg: Universität Würzburg. http://​opus​.bibliothek​.uni​-wuerzburg​.de​/frontdoor​/index​/index​/docId​/6116
Mudambi, Susan, and David Schuff
2010 “What makes a helpful online review? A study of consumer reviews on Amazon.com.” MIS Quarterly 34(1): 185–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parini, Alejandro
2014 “La problematización del contexto en la comunicación en línea [The problematisation of context in online communication].” In Lenguaje, discurso e interacción en los espacios virtuales [Language, Discourse and Interaction in Virtual Spaces], ed. by Alejandro Parini, and Mabel Giammatteo, 145–166. Mendoza, Argentina: Editorial Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.Google Scholar
Parini, Alejandro, and Mabel Giammatteo
2017El Lenguaje en la Comunicación Digital. Aspectos interaccionales y discursivos [Language in Digital Communication: Interactional and Discursive Aspects]. Mauritius: Editorial Académica Española.Google Scholar
Parini, Alejandro, and Luisa Granato
2016 “Discourse functions and resources in the co-construction of YouTube technology product reviews.” Paper presented at the 3rd International Pragmatics Conference of the American Pragmatics Association. Indiana University, Bloomington, 4–6 November 2016.
[ p. 134 ]
Pihlaja, Stephen
2011 “Cops, popes, and garbage collectors: Metaphor and antagonism in an atheist/Christian YouTube video thread.” Language at Internet 8, Article 1. http/​/www​.languageatinternet​.org​/articles​/2011​/Pihlaja (accessed 11 December 2017).
Reicher, Stephen
1982 “The determination of collective behavior.” In Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, ed. by Henri Tajfel, 41–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R.
1969Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John, and Malcolm Coulthard
1975Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri
1972 “La catégorisation sociale [Social categorisation].” In Introduction à la psychologie sociale [An Introduction to Social Psychology], ed. by Serge Moscovici, 272–302. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Tracy, Karen, and Jessica Robles
2013Everyday Talk: Building and Reflecting Identities. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans, and Rob Grootendorst
1995 “Argumentation theory.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jan Blommaert, 55–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vásquez, Camila
2014The Discourse of Online Consumer Reviews. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Warner, Michael
2002Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weizman, Elda, and Anita Fetzer
(eds.) 2015Follow-ups in Political Discourse: Explorations across Contexts Discourse Domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zourou, Katerina, and Marie-Noëlle Lamy
2013 “Introduction.” In Social Networking for Language Education, ed. by Marie-Noëlle Lamy, and Katerina Zourou, 1–7. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Crossref[ p. 135 ]Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Rivers, Damian J. & Andrew S. Ross
2019. “This channel has more subs from rival fans than Arsenal fans”: Arsenal Fan TV, football fandom and banter in the new media era. Sport in Society  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 07 november 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.