Part of
Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interactionEdited by Robert Englebretson
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 164] 2007
► pp. 253–281
Edited by Robert Englebretson
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 164] 2007
► pp. 253–281
Stancetaking as an interactional activity: Challenging the prior speaker
Cited by
Cited by 20 other publications
Bonnin, Juan Eduardo
2019. Double stance discourse: Managing social and personal identity at work. Discourse & Society 30:4 ► pp. 359 ff. 
Chindamo, Massimo, Jens Allwood & Elisabeth Ahlsen
2012. 2012 International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2012 International Confernece on Social Computing, ► pp. 617 ff.
Haddington, Pentti
2012. Pragmatics of Stance. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics,
Hebenstreit, Bryanna L. & Alan Zemel
2021. Chapter 1.2. Affect in interaction. In How Emotions Are Made in Talk [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 321], ► pp. 51 ff.
Heinemann, Trine
2008. Questions of accountability: yes—no interrogatives that are unanswerable. Discourse Studies 10:1 ► pp. 55 ff.
Herder, Anke, Jan Berenst, Kees de Glopper & Tom Koole
2022. Conversational functions of ‘I know’, ‘you know’ and ‘we know’ in collaborative writing of primary school children. Classroom Discourse 13:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Johansson, Marjut
2015. Bravo for this editorial!. In Follow-ups in Political Discourse [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 60], ► pp. 83 ff.
Kiesling, Scott F., Umashanthi Pavalanathan, Jim Fitzpatrick, Xiaochuang Han & Jacob Eisenstein
2018. Interactional Stancetaking in Online Forums. Computational Linguistics 44:4 ► pp. 683 ff.
Klein, Gabriella B., Koffi M. Dossou & Sergio Pasquandrea
2014. Embodying epistemicity. In Communicating Certainty and Uncertainty in Medical, Supportive and Scientific Contexts [Dialogue Studies, 25], ► pp. 223 ff.
Laanesoo, Kirsi & Leelo Keevallik
2017. Noticing Breaches with Nonpolar Interrogatives: EstonianKes(“Who”) Ascribing Responsibility for Problematic Conduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction 50:3 ► pp. 286 ff.
Matalon, Nadav
2021. Chapter 6. The Camel Humps prosodic pattern. In Building Categories in Interaction [Studies in Language Companion Series, 220], ► pp. 155 ff.
Nguyen, Hanh thi & Minh Thi Thuy Nguyen
2021. ‘But I want to say “I means love you”’. Research on Children and Social Interaction 5:2
Postoutenko, Kirill & Olga Sabelfeld
2021. Temporal comparisons, historical semantics of interaction and ‘post-war consensus’ in British Parliament: Studying time references in a deliberative environment. Time & Society 30:4 ► pp. 598 ff.
Riccioni, Ilaria, Andrzej Zuczkowski, Roberto Burro, Ramona Bongelli & Claudia Felser
2022. The Italian epistemic marker mi sa [to me it knows] compared to so [I know], non so [I don’t know], non so se [I don’t know whether], credo [I believe], penso [I think]. PLOS ONE 17:9 ► pp. e0274694 ff.
Soler, Josep & Lídia Gallego-Balsà
2019. Clashing Stances Towards Catalan: An Ethnographic Study in a Small University in Catalonia. In The Sociolinguistics of Higher Education, ► pp. 67 ff.
Szczyrbak, Magdalena
2016. Say and stancetaking in courtroom talk: a corpus-assisted study. Corpora 11:2 ► pp. 143 ff.
Szczyrbak, Magdalena
2017. Modal Adverbs of Certainty in EU Legal Discourse: A Parallel Corpus Approach. In Contrastive Analysis of Discourse-pragmatic Aspects of Linguistic Genres [Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, 5], ► pp. 91 ff.
Zinken, Jörg & Uwe-A. Küttner
2022. Offering an Interpretation of Prior Talk in Everyday Interaction: A Semantic Map Approach. Discourse Processes 59:4 ► pp. 298 ff.
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 june 2023. 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.