Cover not available
Part of
The Construction of Discourse as Verbal Interaction
Edited by María de los Ángeles Gómez González and J. Lachlan Mackenzie
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 296] 2018
► pp. 1–10

Introduction

How is discourse constructed and evaluation achieved in verbal interaction?

| University of Santiago de Compostela
| VU Amsterdam
Article outline
  • References
Published online: 20 September 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.296.01gom
References
Andersen, Gisle
2001 Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas, and Alex Lascarides
2003 Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beavers, John, Beth Levin, and Shiao Wei Tham
2010 “The Typology of Motion Expressions Revisited.” Journal of Linguistics 46: 331–377.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, Monika
2008 Emotion Talk across Corpora. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan
1989 “Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect.” Text & Talk 9(1): 93–124.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Boucher, Jerry, and Charles E. Osgood
1969 “The Pollyanna Hypothesis.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 8: 1–8.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brunner, Marie-Louise
2015 Negotiating Conversation Starts in the Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Unpublished MA thesis. Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
CASE
2018 The CASE Project. Birkenfeld: Trier University of Applied Sciences. [[URL]] (14 March 2018).Google Scholar
Cheng, Winnie, and Martin Warren
2001 “The Use of Vague Language in Intercultural Conversations in Hong Kong.” English World-Wide 22(1): 81–104.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Columbus, Georgie
2009 “A Corpus-Based Analysis of Invariant Tags in Five Varieties of English.” In Corpus Linguistics: Refinements and Reassessments, ed. by Antoinette Renouf, and Andrew Kehoe, 401–414. Amsterdam & New York NY: Rodopi.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2001 “Constructing Reason-for-the-Call Turns in Everyday Telephone Conversation.” InLiSt: Interaction and Linguistic Structures 25.Google Scholar
Cuenca, Maria Josep
2013 “The Fuzzy Boundaries between Discourse Marking and Modal Marking.” In Discourse Markers and Modal Markers: Categorization and Description, ed. by Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie, and Paola Pietrandrea, 191–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cunningham, Hamish, Diana Maynard, and Kalina Bontcheva
2002 “GATE: A Framework and Graphical Development Environment for Robust NLP Tools and Applications.” Proceedings of the 40th Anniversary Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’02). Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
1989 Language and Power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner
2002 The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
1996 “Pragmatic Markers.” Pragmatics 6 (2): 167–190.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geluykens, Ronald
1993 “Topic Introduction in English Conversation.” Transactions of the Philological Society 91 (2): 181–214.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1993 English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction. 2 vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gómez González, María de los Ángeles
2012 “The Question of Tag Questions in English and Spanish.” In Encoding the Past, Decoding the Future: Corpora in the 21st Century, ed. by Isabel Moskowich, and Begoña Crespo, 59–97. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
2014 “Canonical Tag Questions in English, Spanish and Portuguese: A Discourse-Functional Study.” Languages in Contrast 14 (1): 93–126.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Canonical Tag Questions in English, Spanish and Portuguese: A Discourse-Functional Study.” In Genre- and Register-Related Discourse Features in Contrast, ed. by Marie-Aude Lefer, and Svetlana Vogeleer, 93–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
González, Montserrat
2004 Pragmatic Markers in Oral Narratives: The Case of English and Catalan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, Bethany, and Douglas Biber
2014 “Stance Markers.” In Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook, ed. by Karin Aijmer, and Christoph Rühlemann, 219–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
1994 Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan, and Geoff Thompson
2000 Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken
2005 “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2): 173–192.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo
2007 “Negativity Bias in Language: A Cognitive-Affective Model of Emotive Intensifiers.” Cognitive Linguistics 18(3): 417–443.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lavid, Julia, and Lara Moratón
2015 “Intersubjective Positioning and Thematisation in English and Spanish: A Contrastive Analysis of Letters to the Editor.” Nordic Journal of English Studies 14 (1): 289–319.Google Scholar
Lavid, Julia, Jorge Arús, Bernard DeClerck, and Veronique Hoste
2015 “Creation of a High-Quality, Register-Diversified Parallel Corpus for Linguistic and Computational Investigations.” In Current Work in Corpus Linguistics: Working with Traditionally Conceived Corpora and Beyond: Selected Papers from the 7th International Conference on Corpus Linguistics (CILC2015). Procedia –Social and Behavioral Sciences 198 (24): 249–256.Google Scholar
Maier, Robert M., Carolin Hofmockel, and Anita Fetzer
2016 “The Negotiation of Discourse Relations in Context: Co-Constructing Degrees of Overtness.” Intercultural Pragmatics 13 (1): 71–105.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., and Peter R. R. White
2005 The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Martínez, María Ángeles
2014 “Storyworld Possible Selves and the Phenomenon of Narrative Immersion: Testing a New Theoretical Construct.” Narrative 22 (1): 110–131.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Staging the Ghost Blend in Two Versions of the Ballad ‘Big Joe and Phantom 309’.” In Audionarratology: Interfaces of Sound and Narrative, ed. by Jarmila Mildorf, and Till Kinzel, 47–63. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ortony, Andrew, and Terence J. Turner
1990 “What’s Basic about Emotions?” Psychological Review 97 (3): 315–331.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pichler, Heike
2013 The Structure of Discourse-Pragmatic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pratto, Felicia, and Oliver P. John
1991 “Automatic Vigilance: The Attention-Grabbing Power of Negative Social Information.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61(3): 380–391.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramírez-Verdugo, Dolores, and Jesús Romero-Trillo
2005 “The Pragmatic Function of Intonation in L2 Discourse: English Tag Questions Used by Spanish Speakers.” Intercultural Pragmatics 2: 151–168.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1968 “Sequencing in Conversational Openings.” American Anthropologist 70: 1075–1095.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence
1999 “Discourse Markers.” Lingua 107: 227–265.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita
1994 An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Mariko
2014 “A Comparative Study of Tag Questions in Four Asian Englishes from a Corpus-Based Approach.” Asian Englishes 16 (2): 101–124.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
2000 Towards a Cognitive Semantics II: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff
2015 “Emotional Talk, Emotion Talk, and Evaluation.” Presentation given at the Jornada de Investigación Emo-Fundett. Madrid 4 February 2015, later revised in July 2015. Madrid: UNED.Google Scholar
Wong, Jock
2004 “The Particles of Singapore English: A Semantic and Cultural Interpretation.” Journal of Pragmatics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language Studies 36 (4): 739–793.DOI logoGoogle Scholar