Article published in:
Language and Dialogue
Vol. 10:2 (2020) ► pp. 215240
Aphek, Edna and Yishai Tobin
1990The Semiotics of Fortune-Telling. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Avtgis, Theodore
1998 “Locus of control and persuasion, social influence, and conformity: A meta-analytic review.” Psychological Reports 83 (3): 899–903. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beach, Wayne A.
1993 “Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages.” Journal of Pragmatics 191: 325–352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bongelli, Ramona, Ilaria Riccioni, and Andrzej Zuczkowski
2018a “Epistemic stance negotiation: Some examples from Italian conversations.” Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 1351: 1–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018b “Questions and epistemic stance in Italian conversations.” Ampersand 51: 29–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chauvin, Bruno and Etienne Mullet
2018 “Individual differences in paranormal beliefs: The differential role of personality aspetcs.” Current psychology: 1–10. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cialdini, Robert B.
1983Influence. The Psychology of persuasion. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
2004 “The science of persuasion.” Scientific American Mind 14 (1): 70–77.Google Scholar
Delorme, Arnaud, Julie Beishel, Leena Michel, Mark Boccuzzi, Dean Radin and Paul J. Mills
2013 “Electrocortical activity associated with subjective communication with deceased.” Frontiers in Psychology 41: 1–10. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drinkwater, Kenneth, Andrew Denovan, Neil Dagnall and Andrew Parker
2018 “The Australian Sheep-Goat Scale: An Evaluation of Factor Structure and Convergent Validity.” Frontiers in Psychology 91: 1–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Enoksen, Anette Einan and Paul Dickerson
2018 “That proves my point: How mediums reconstrue disconfirmation in medium-sitter interactions.” British Journal of Social Psychology 571: 386–403. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hayano, Kaoru
2011 “Claiming epistemic primacy: Yo-marked assessments in Japanese.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada and Jakob Steensig, 58–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “Question design in conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, eds. by Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 395–414. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wyley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heritage, John
2012a “Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012b “The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 30–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John and Geoffrey, Raymond G.
2005 “The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68 (1): 15–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
2010 “Questioning in medicine”. In “Why Do You Ask?”: the Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, ed. by Alice Freed and Susan Ehrlich, 42–68. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John and Geoffrey Raymond
2012 “Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions.” In Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. de Ruiter, 179–192. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jorgensen, Danny L.
1984 “Divinatory Discourse.” Symbolic Interaction 7 (2): 135–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kamio, Akio
1997Territory of Information. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William and David Fanshel
1977Therapeutic Discourse, Psychoterapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lamont, Peter, Claudia Coelho and Andrew Mckinlay
2009 “Explaining the unexplained: Warranting disbelief in the paranormal.” Discourse Studies 11 (5): 543–559. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Seung-Hee
2014 “Response design in conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by John Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 415–432. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
2014 “Action formation and ascription.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by John Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 103–130. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Linell, Per and Thomas Luckman
1991 “Asymmetries in dialogue: some conceptual preliminaries”. In Asymmetries in Dialogue, ed. by Ivana Marková and Klaus Foppa, 1–20. Hemel Hempsted: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Locke, Terry
2004Critical Discourse Analysis. New York/London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Milgram, Stanley
1963 “Behavioural study of obedience.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 671: 371–378. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2013 “Displaying, contesting and negotiating epistemic authority in social interaction: Descriptions and questions in guided visits.” Discourse Studies 15 (5): 597–626. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ohashi, Yasushi, Robin Wooffitt, Clare Jackson and Yumi Nixon
2013 “Discourse, culture, and extraordinary experiences: Observations from a comparative, qualitative analysis of Japanese and UK English accounts of paranormal phenomena.” Western Journal of Communication 77(4): 466–488. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo
1984 “The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1): 69–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1986Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey
2003 “Grammar and social organization: Yes/No interrogatives and the structure of responding.” American Sociological Review 68 (6): 939–967. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Riccioni, Ilaria, Ramona Bongelli, Gill Philip and Andrzej Zuczkowski
2018 “Dubitative questions and epistemic stance.” Lingua, 2071: 71–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1980 “Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?”.” Sociological Inquiry 501: 104–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Sequence Organization in Interaction. London: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simmonds-Moore, Christine A.
2016 “An interpretative phenomenological analysis exploring synesthesia as an exceptional experience: Insights for consciousness and cognition.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 13(4): 303–327. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya
2005 “Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38(2): 131–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “Sequence organization.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by John Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 191–209. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig
2011The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Anna
2016 “Rational Thinkink and Belief in Psychic Abilities: It Depends on Level of Involvement.” Psychological Reports 118 (1): 74–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Storm, Lance, Ken Drinkwater and Anthony L. Jinks
2017 “A Question on Belief: An Analysis of Item Content in Paranormal Belief Questionnnaires.” Journal of Scientific Exploration 31 (2): 187–230.Google Scholar
Szczyrbak, Magdalena
2018 “Knowing, Unknowing or Believing? Epistemic Stance in Donald Tusk’s Testimony in the Trial on the Polish Air Force Tu-154 Air Crash.” Studies in Polish Linguistics 13 (34): 209–236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A.
2004 “Critical Discourse Analysis”. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heide Hamilton, 352–371. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wales, Katie
2009 “Unnatural conversation in unnatural conversations: speech reporting in the discourse of spiritual mediumship.” Language and Literature 18 (4): 347–356. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willett, Thomas
1988 “A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality.” Studies in Language 12 (1): 51–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Wendy
2000 “Attitude change. Persuasion and social influence.” Annual Review of Psychology 511: 539–570. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wooffitt, Robin
2000 “Some properties of interactional organisation of displays of paranormal cognition in psychic-sitter interaction.” Sociology 34 (3): 457–479.Google Scholar
2001a “Researching psychic practioners: Conversation analysis.” In Discourse as Data. A Guide for Analysis, ed. by Margaret Wetherell, Stephanie Taylor and Simeon J. Yates, 49–92. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
2001b “A socially organized basis for displays of cognition: Procedural orientation to evidential turns in psychic-sitter interaction.” British Journal of Social Psychology 401: 545–563. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006The language of mediums and psychics. Burlington, USA: Ashgate.Google Scholar
2007 “Epistemic authority and neutrality in the discourse of psychic practitioners: Toward a naturalistic parapsychology.” Journal of Parapsychology 71 (1/2): 69–104.Google Scholar
Wooffitt, Robin, Nicola Holt and Simone Allistone
2010 “Introspection as institutional practice: Reflections on the attempt to capture conscious experience in a parapsychology experiment.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 7(1): 5–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wooffitt, Robin, Clare Jackson, Darren Reed, Yasushi Ohashi and Isaac Hughes
2013 “Self-identity, authenticity and the other: The spirits and audience management in stage mediumship.” Language and Communication 331: 93–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zuczkowski, Andrzej, Ramona Bongelli, and Ilaria Riccioni
2017Epistemic Stance in Dialogue. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Bongelli, Ramona, Ilaria Riccioni, Alessandra Fermani & Gill Philip
2020. Hypothetical questions in everyday Italian conversations.. Lingua 246  pp. 102951 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2022. 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.