Introduction to Discourse Studies

New edition

| University of Tilburg
| University of Vechta
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027201959 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
PaperbackAvailable
ISBN 9789027201966 | EUR 36.00 | USD 54.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027263100 | EUR 99.00/36.00*
| USD 149.00/54.00*
 

This new edition of Introduction to Discourse Studies (IDS) is a thoroughly revised and updated version of this successful textbook, which has been published in four languages and has become a must-read for anyone interested in the analysis of texts and discourses. Supported by an international advisory board of 14 leading experts, it deals with all main subdomains in discourse studies, from pragmatics to cognitive linguistics, from critical discourse analysis to stylistics, and many more. The book approaches major issues in this field from the Anglo-American and European as well as the Asian traditions. It provides an ‘academic toolkit’ for future courses on discourse studies and serves as a stepping stone to the independent study of professional literature. The chapters are subdivided in modular sections that can be studied separately. The pedagogical objectives are further supported by

  • over 500 index entries covering frequently used concepts that are accurately defined with examples throughout the text;
  • more than 150 test-yourself questions, all elaborately answered, which are ideal for self-study;
  • nearly 100 assignments that provide ample material for lecturers to focus on specific topics in their courses.

Jan Renkema is Emeritus Professor of Discourse Quality at the Department of Communication and Information Sciences at Tilburg University, The Netherlands. He is also editor of Discourse, of Course (2009) and author of The Texture of Discourse (2009). In 2009, a Chinese edition of Introduction to Discourse Studies was published by Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

Christoph Schubert is Full Professor of English Linguistics at Vechta University, Germany. He is author of an Introduction to English text linguistics (2nd ed. 2012) and co-editor of Pragmatic Perspectives on Postcolonial Discourse (2016) and Variational Text Linguistics (2016).

This title replaces Introduction to Discourse Studies (2004)

[Not in series, 219]  2018.  xv, 453 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Preface
xii–xiii
Advisory board for Introduction to Discourse Studies
Chapter 1. Introduction
2–9
Part I. General orientation
14–64
Chapter 2. The pragmatic framework
14–40
Chapter 3. Discourse in communication
42–64
Part II. Backpacking for a journey into discourse studies
68–211
Chapter 4. Discourse classification
68–99
Chapter 5. Structured content
102–123
Chapter 6. Discourse connections
126–149
Chapter 7. Contextual phenomena
152–179
Chapter 8. Style and stylistics
182–211
Part III. Special modes of communication
216–284
Chapter 9. Conversation analysis
216–231
Chapter 10. Informative discourse
234–252
Chapter 11. Narratives
254–266
Chapter 12. Argumentation and persuasion
268–284
Part IV. Special interests
288–367
Chapter 13. Discourse and cognition
288–313
Chapter 14. Discourse and institution
316–344
Chapter 15. Discourse and culture
346–367
Key to the questions
370–419
References
421–448
Index
449
“This revised and expanded new edition of Introduction to Discourse Studies is a testimony to its success. Few introductory texts provide such a clear and accessible introduction to the subject of discourse analysis. The book also offers the broadest coverage of any introductory book. It gives students a thorough grounding in the basics of discourse analysis and acquaints them with the essentials of language studies. The book is an engaging initiation into the study of discourse. It will be appreciated by lecturers and students, but it is also for anyone interested in language.”
“Presenting an even more comprehensive overview of discourse studies than its predecessor, the new edition of Introduction to Discourse Studies will be the go-to reference book in its field. With its up-to-date contents, thoroughly reworked in collaboration with leading experts in the field, the book will provide guidance for students, definitions and examples for teachers and inspiration for researchers. I will be heartily recommending it to my students.”
“A welcome new and updated edition of Renkema’s successful Introduction to Discourse Studies, now co-authored with Christoph Schubert. The book covers a wealth of key concepts and classic approaches to discourse studies, integrating the perspectives of an international advisory board. Each chapter includes suggested questions and assignments as well as recommended readings, which makes the book particularly useful for lecturers and students. Among many other updates, notable new content includes online genres, multimodality, corpus stylistics, populist discourse, and the discursive construction of sexual identities. Providing a broad overview, this is an ideal starting point for anyone ready to explore the rich interdisciplinary field of discourse studies.”
“This, the third edition of the Introduction to Discourse Studies will be welcomed by students and teachers alike. It is, by most standards, a long book, and this allows it to cover a commendably wide variety of topics and research traditions – it is more comprehensive than most competitors and will thus allow interested students to venture beyond their prescribed course reading. The writing is clear and engaging and there are frequent well-chosen examples. The lists of recommended readings at the end of chapters, the augmented final bibliography and the very detailed index are excellent features. I would strongly recommend this book.”
“In the new edition of the Introduction to Discourse Studies (Renkema and Schubert, 2018), this well-established textbook provides an updated ‘academic toolkit’ for students of all the major domains in discourse studies. One of the textbook’s primary assets is the very accessible structure of each section which guides students from an introductory overview through concise accounts of the major models of analysis. Each chapter concludes with suggested ‘Questions and Assignments’ and a very useful ‘Bibliographical information’ section which directs students to the seminal works of some established scholars in each discipline. The chapter on ‘Style and stylistics’ (pp. 181–211) has doubled in size from the previous edition (Renkema, 2004: 145–159). Given the directions which stylistics has taken in the years between these editions, it is appropriate that new sections on corpus and pragmatic stylistics, on the one hand, and cognitive poetics, on the other, are included alongside a discussion of classical rhetoric and general accounts of the concepts of style and register. This textbook is recommended to those who wish to provide students with an introductory insight into stylistics alongside overviews of a wide range of its cognate disciplines.”
References

References

Adler, M.
(2012) The plain language movement. In P. Tiersma & L. M. Solan (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and law (pp. 67–83). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [14.4]Google Scholar
Agee, W., Ault, P., & Emery, E.
(1997) Introduction to mass communications (12th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. [14.6]Google Scholar
Ainsworth-Vaughn, N.
(1998) Claiming power in doctor-patient talk. New York: Oxford University Press. [14.7]Google Scholar
Ajzen, I.
(1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 179–211. [12.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L.
(2001) Through the models of writing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [13.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Allen, G.
(2011) Intertextuality (2nd ed.). Oxford: Routledge. [3.7]Google Scholar
Anchimbe, E. A., & Janney, R. W.
(2017) Postcolonial pragmatics. In A. Barron, Y. Gu & G. Steen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 105–120). London: Routledge. [8.6.2, 15.6]Google Scholar
Arendholz, J.
(2013) (In)Appropriate online behavior: A pragmatic analysis of message board relations. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [2.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arminen, I.
(2005) Institutional interaction: Studies of talk at work. Aldershot: Ashgate. [14.2]Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P.
(1979) Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanity Press. [14.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, P., & Luzio, A. di
(Eds.) (1992) The contextualization of language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [3.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L.
(1976) How to do things with words (2nd ed.). Ed. by J. O. Urmson & M. Sbisà. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2.3.1]Google Scholar
Ausubel, D.
(1960) The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267–272. [5.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baesler, J., & Burgoon, J.
(1994) The temporal effects of story and statistical evidence on belief change. Communication Research, 21, 582–602. [12.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, M.
(1981) The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist, Ed., C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. [4.3]Google Scholar
(1986) The problem of speech genres. In M. M. Bakthin (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds., V. W. McGee, Trans.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60–102). Austin: University of Texas Press. [4.3]Google Scholar
Bal, M.
(2017) Narratology: Introduction to the theory of narrative (4th ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. [7.5]Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., Flores d’Arcais, G. B., & Rayner, K.
(Eds.) (1990) Comprehension processes in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.2]Google Scholar
Bamberg, M.
(Ed.) (1997) Oral versions of personal experience: Three decades of narrative analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [11.3]Google Scholar
Barcelona, A.
(Ed.) (2003) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [8.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Harris, S.
(1997) Managing language: The discourse of corporate meetings. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [14.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Y.
(1954) Indexical expressions. Mind, 63, 359–379. [7.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barron, A.
(2012) Public information messages: A contrastive genre analysis of state-citizen communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [14.5]Google Scholar
Bartlett, F. C.
(1932) Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [13.2]Google Scholar
Bartlett, T., & O’Grady, G.
(Eds.) (2017) The Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics. Oxford: Routledge. [3.6]Google Scholar
Bartsch, R.
(1987) Norms of language: Theoretical and practical issues. London: Longman. [3.3]Google Scholar
Bateman, J.
(2008) Multimodality and genre: A foundation for the systematic analysis of multimodal documents. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [4.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Text and image: A critical introduction to the visual/verbal divide. London: Routledge. [4.5]Google Scholar
(2017) The place of systemic functional linguistics as a linguistic theory in the twenty-first century. In T. Bartlett & G. O’Grady (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics (pp. 11–26). Oxford: Routledge. [3.6]Google Scholar
Bateman, J., & Schmidt, K.-H.
(2012) Multimodal film analysis: How films mean. New York: Routledge. [4.5]Google Scholar
Baten, L.
(1981) Text comprehension. The parameters of difficulty in narrative and expository prose texts: A redefinition of readability. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana. [5.2]Google Scholar
Baus, M., & Sandig, B.
(1985) Gesprächspsychotherapie und weibliches Selbstkonzept: Sozialpsychologische und linguistische Analyse am Beispiel eines Falles [Conversational psychotherapy and female self-concept: Socio-psychological and linguistic analysis of a case example]. Hildesheim: Olms. [14.7]Google Scholar
Beaugrande, R. A. de, & Dressler, W. U.
(1981) Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman. [1, 3.5, 3.7, 6.2, 6.3]Google Scholar
Bednarek, M., & Caple, H.
(2012) News discourse. London: Bloomsbury. [14.6]Google Scholar
(2017) The discourse of news values: How news organisations create newsworthiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [14.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bell, A.
(1991) The language of news media. Oxford: Blackwell. [14.6]Google Scholar
Bell, A., & Garrett, P.
(Eds.) (1998) Approaches to media discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. [14.6]Google Scholar
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M.
(1987) The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.5, 13.6]Google Scholar
Berzlánovich, I., & Redeker, G.
(2012) Genre-dependent interaction of coherence and lexical cohesion in written discourse. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 183–208. [10.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bhatia, V. K.
(1993) Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman. [4.4, 14.4]Google Scholar
(2017) Critical genre analysis: Investigating interdiscursive performance in professional practice. London: Routledge. [4.4]Google Scholar
Biber, D.
(1989) A typology of English texts. Linguistics, 27, 3–43. [4.2, 10.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) University language: A corpus-based study on spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [10.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. A.
(2007) Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [5.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
(2001) Register variation: A corpus approach. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 175–196). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. [8.2]Google Scholar
(2009) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [4.6.3, 8.2, 10.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Gray, B.
(2016) Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [10.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman. [4.3]Google Scholar
Birner, B., & Ward, G.
(Eds.) (1998) Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [7.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Black, E.
(2006) Pragmatic stylistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [8.6.2]Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. L.
(1992) Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell. [2.5]Google Scholar
Blommaert, J.
(2005) Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [1]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boden, D.
(1994) The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge: Polity. [14.2]Google Scholar
Bolinger, D.
(1982) Language, the loaded weapon: The use and abuse of language today. London: Longman. [14.3]Google Scholar
Bosch, P.
(1983) Agreement and anaphora: A study in the role of pronouns in syntax and discourse. London: Academic Press. [6.2.2]Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P.
(1991) Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity. [15.3]Google Scholar
Bousfield, D.
(2008) Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [2.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bousfield, D., & Locher, M. A.
(Eds.) (2008) Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [2.6]Google Scholar
Bowe, H., Martin, K., & Manns, H.
(2014) Communication across cultures: Mutual understanding in a global world (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [15.6]Google Scholar
Bradac, J.
(Ed.) (1989) Message effects in communication science. London: Sage. [12.4]Google Scholar
Bransford, J., Barclay, J., & Franks, J.
(1972) Sentence memory: A constructive versus interpretative approach. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 193–209. [13.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J., & Johnson, M.
(1973) Considerations of some problems of comprehension. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 383–438). London: Academic Press. [3.7, 4.5, 13.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, C.
(Ed.) (1996) Disorderly discourse, narrative conflict and inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [11.5]Google Scholar
Brinton, L.
(1996) Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [9.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Britton, B. K., & Black, J. B.
(Eds.) (1985) Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [10.4]Google Scholar
Britton, B. K., & Graesser, A. C.
(Eds.) (1996) Models of understanding text. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.3]Google Scholar
Broek, P. van den, Linzie, B., Fletcher, C., & Marsolek, C.
(2000) The role of causal discourse structure in narrative writing. Memory and Cognition, 28, 711–721. [11.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brône, G., & Vandaele, J.
(Eds.) (2009) Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [8.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G., & Yule, G.
(1983) Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [1, 3.5, 3.7, 5.3, 6.3, 7.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P.
(2017) Politeness and impoliteness. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics (pp. 383–399). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2.6]Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C.
(1978/1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2.6]Google Scholar
Bublitz, W.
(2006) It utterly boggles the mind: Knowledge, common ground and coherence. In H. Pishwa (Ed.), Language and memory: Aspects of knowledge representation (pp. 359–386). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [6.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bublitz, W., Jucker, A. H., & Schneider, K. P.
(Eds.) (2010–) Handbooks of pragmatics (HOPS). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [3.2]Google Scholar
Bublitz, W., Lenk, U., & Ventola, E.
(Eds.) (1999) Coherence in spoken and written discourse: How to create it and how to describe it. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [6.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, M., Liang, A., & Sutton, L.
(Eds.) (1999) Reinventing identities: The gendered self in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [15.4]Google Scholar
Bühler, K.
(1934/2011) Theory of language: The representational function of language (D. F. Goodwin and A. Eschbach, Trans.). Amsterdam: Benjamins. (Original work published 1934) [2.2, 6.2, 7.3]Google Scholar
Bultinck, B.
(2005) Numerous meanings: The meanings of English cardinals and the legacy of Paul Grice. Amsterdam: Elsevier. [2.4]Google Scholar
Burgoon, M.
(1989) Messages and persuasive effects. In J. J. Bradac (Ed.), Message effects in communication science (pp. 129–164). London: Sage. [12.4]Google Scholar
Burke, M.
(Ed.) (2014) The Routledge handbook of stylistics. Oxford: Routledge. [8.6, 8.7]Google Scholar
Caldas-Coulthard, C., & Leeuwen, T. van
(2002) Stunning, shimmering, iridescent: Toys as the representation of gendered social actors. In L. Litosseliti & J. Sunderland (Eds.), Gender identity and discourse analysis (pp. 91–108). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [15.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Candlin, C. N., & Sarangi, S.
(Eds.) (2011) Handbook of communication in organisations and professions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [14.7]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Canestrelli, A. R., Mak, W. M., & Sanders, T. J.
(2013) Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(9), 1394–1413. [6.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Canning, P., & Whiteley, S.
(Eds.) (2017) Stylistic approaches to reader response research: Special issue. Language and Literature, 26(2). [8.6]Google Scholar
Cap, P., & Dynel, M.
(Eds.) (2017) Implicitness: From lexis to discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [7.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R.
(2002) Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell. [2.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L.
(1976) Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–55). New York: Academic Press. [7.4.2]Google Scholar
(1982) Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 35–53). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. [4.3]Google Scholar
(1994) Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [13.5]Google Scholar
Chandler, D.
(2017) Semiotics: The basics (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. [3.2]Google Scholar
Chapman, S., & Clark, B.
(Eds.) (2014) Pragmatic literary stylistics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. [8.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cherny, L.
(1999) Conversation and community: Chat in a virtual world. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [4.6]Google Scholar
Chilton, P.
(2004) Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge. [14.3]Google Scholar
Chilton, P., & Schäffner, C.
(Eds.) (2002) Politics as text and talk: Analytical approaches to political discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [14.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Discourse and politics. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 303–330). London: Sage. [14.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, B.
(2013) Relevance theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2.4, 2.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H.
(1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [3.4, 9.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) Dogmas of understanding. Discourse Processes, 23, 567–598. [13.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Haviland, S. E.
(1977) Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp. 1–40). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. [7.4]Google Scholar
Clark, U.
(1996) An introduction to stylistics. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes. [8.2]Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E., & Gill, V. T.
(2014) Conversation analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 120–134). London: Routledge. [9.2]Google Scholar
Clift, R.
(2014) Conversation analysis. In K. P. Schneider & A. Barron (Eds.), Pragmatics of discourse (pp. 97–124). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [9.1, 9.2, 9.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [9.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coates, J. & Pichler, P.
(Ed.) (2011) Language and gender: A reader (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. [15.4]Google Scholar
Cook, G.
(1989) Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [1, 2.4]Google Scholar
Costermans, J., & Fayol, M.
(2014) Processing interclausal relationships: Studies in the production and comprehension of text. London: Psychology Press. [6.5]Google Scholar
Coulthard, M.
(1985) An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Longman. [1]Google Scholar
Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., & Wright, D.
(2017) An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. London: Routledge. [14.4]Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Kortmann, B.
(Eds.) (2000) Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [6.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D.
(2005) The stories of English. London: Penguin. [7.3]Google Scholar
(2006) Language and the internet (2nd ed.). Cambridge: University Press. [4.3, 4.6, 4.6.1, 4.6.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Txtng: The gr8 db8. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [4.6.3]Google Scholar
(2011) Internet linguistics: A student guide. London: Routledge. [4.6]Google Scholar
Crystal, D., & Davy, D.
(1969) Investigating English style. London: Longman. [8.4]Google Scholar
Culpeper, J.
(2001) Language and characterisation: People in plays and other texts. London: Longman. [8.6.3]Google Scholar
(2011) Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cutting, J.
(2008) Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. [2.5]Google Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
(2014) Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [8.6]Google Scholar
Daneš, F.
(1974) Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In F. Daneš (Ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective (pp. 106–128). Prague: Academia. [5.3]Google Scholar
Das, D., & Taboada, M.
(2017) Signalling of coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse Processes, 1–29. [6.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davis, B., & Brewer, J.
(1997) Electronic discourse: Linguistic individuals in virtual space. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. [4.6]Google Scholar
Davison, A., & Green, A. M.
(Eds.) (1988) Linguistic complexity and text comprehension: Readability issues reconsidered. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [10.3]Google Scholar
Davison, A., & Kantor, R.
(1982) On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: A case study from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 187–209. [10.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Fina, A., & Georgakopoulou, A.
(2011) Analyzing narrative: Discourse and sociolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [11.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Eds.) (2015) The handbook of narrative analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell. [11.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delin, J., & Bateman, J.
(2002) Describing and critiquing multimodal documents. Document Design, 3, 141–155. [4.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, E., & Merrill, J.
(2002) Media debates: Issues in mass communication (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. [14.6]Google Scholar
Di Blas, N., & Paolini, P.
(2003) There and back again: What happens to phoric elements in a ‘web dialogue’. Document Design, 4, 194–206. [6.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diederich, P. B., French, J. W., & Carlton, S. T.
(1961) Factors in judgments of writing ability. ETS Research Bulletin Series, 2, 1–93. [10.5]Google Scholar
Dijk, T. A. van
(1977) Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman. [3.5]Google Scholar
(1980) Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [5.4, 5.5]Google Scholar
(1984) Prejudice in discourse: An analysis of ethnic prejudice in cognition and conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [15.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1988) News analysis: Case studies of international and national news in the press. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [14.6]Google Scholar
(1993) Elite discourse and racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [15.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996) Discourse, power and access. In C. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 84–104). London: Routledge. [15.3]Google Scholar
(1998) Ideology. London: Sage. [15.3]Google Scholar
(2008) Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [7.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2011) Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (2nd ed.). London: Sage. [1]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014a) Discourse and knowledge. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 587–603). New York: Routledge. [13.2, 13.4]Google Scholar
(2014b) Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [15.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Socio-cognitive discourse studies. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 26–43). New York: Routledge. [15.3]Google Scholar
Dillon, G. L.
(1981) Constructing texts: Elements of a theory of composition and style. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [10.5]Google Scholar
Dimter, M.
(1981) Textklassenkonzepte heutiger Alltagssprache: Kommunikationssituation, Textfunktion und Textinhalt als Kategorien alltagssprachlicher Textklassifikation [Text classification concepts of current colloquial language: Communication situation, text function and text content as categories for text classification of colloquial language]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. [4.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Donahue, C., & Lillis, T.
(2014) Models of writing and text production. In E.-M. Jakobs & D. Perrin (Eds.), Handbook of writing and text production (pp. 55–78). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [13.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dorgeloh, H.
(2005) Patterns of agentivity and narrativity in early science discourse. In J. Skaffari, M. Peikola, R. Carroll, R. Hiltunen & B. Wårvik (Eds.), Opening windows on texts and discourses of the past (pp. 83–94). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [10.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doury, M.
(2009) Argument schemes typologies in practice: The case of comparative arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation (pp. 141–156). Dordrecht: Springer. [12.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Downs, C., & Goldhaber, G.
(1994) International Communication Association audit. In R. Rubin, P. Palmgreen & H. Sypher (Eds.), Communication research measures: A sourcebook (pp. 193–205). New York: Guilford. [10.6]Google Scholar
Drew, P., & Heritage, J.
(Eds.) (1992) Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [14.2]Google Scholar
Duchan, J. F., Bruder, G. A., & Hewitt, L. E.
(Eds.) (1995) Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [7.3]Google Scholar
Duffy, T.
(1985) Readability formulas: What’s the use? In T. Duffy & R. Waller (Eds.), Designing usable texts (pp. 113–143). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. [10.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duranti, A.
(Ed.) (2009) Linguistic anthropology: A reader (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. [15.2]Google Scholar
Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C.
(Eds.) (1992) Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [3.5]Google Scholar
Dušková, L.
(2015) From syntax to text: The Janus face of functional sentence perspective. Prague: Karolinum Press. [5.3]Google Scholar
Duszak, A.
(Ed.) (1997) Culture and styles of academic discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [14.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S.
(2013) Language and gender (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [15.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eco, U.
(1966) The narrative structure in Fleming. In U. Eco & O. Del Buono (Eds.), The Bond affair. London: McDonald. [11.2]Google Scholar
Edmondson, W. J.
(1981) Spoken discourse: A model for analysis. London: Longman. [9.4]Google Scholar
Eelen, G.
(2001) A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. [2.6]Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van
(Ed.) (2002) Advances in pragma-dialectics. Amsterdam: Sic Sat. [12.3]Google Scholar
(Ed.) (2017) Prototypical argumentative patterns: Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [12.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M.
(2014) Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer. [12.1, 12.2, 12.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.
(1994) Studies in pragma-dialectics. Amsterdam: Sic Sat. [12.3]Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A.
(Eds.) (1999) Proceedings of the 4th international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat. [12.3]Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F.
(1996) Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [12.2]Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
(2002) Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [12.3]Google Scholar
Ehlich, K.
(Ed.) (1980) Erzählen im Alltag [Narrating in everyday life]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. [11.3]Google Scholar
(1995) The discourse of business negotiation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [14.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ehlich, K., & Wagner, J.
(Eds.) (1995) The discourse of business communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [12.5]Google Scholar
Ehrlich, S.
(1980) Comprehension of pronouns. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 247–255. [6.2.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, S., Meyerhoff, M., & Holmes, J.
(Eds.) (2014) The handbook of language, gender, and sexuality (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell. [15.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eisenlauer, V.
(2013) A critical hypertext analysis of social media: The true colours of Facebook. London: Continuum. [4.6.2, 4.6.3]Google Scholar
Emmott, C., Alexander, M., & Marszalek, A.
(2014) Schema theory in stylistics. In M. Burke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics (pp. 268–283). Oxford: Routledge. [8.6.3]Google Scholar
Enkvist, N. E.
(1973) Linguistic stylistics. The Hague: Mouton. [8.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, J.
(1995) Altered conditions: Disease, medicine, and storytelling. New York: Routledge. [14.7]Google Scholar
Esser, J.
(2014) Taxonomies of discourse types. In K. P. Schneider & A. Barron (Eds.), Pragmatics of discourse (pp. 443–462). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [4.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Everett, C.
(2013) Linguistic relativity: Evidence across languages and cognitive domains. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [15.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eysenck, M. W.
(2012) Fundamentals of cognition (2nd ed.). Hove: Psychology Press. [13.5]Google Scholar
Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. T.
(2015) Cognitive psychology: A student’s handbook (7th ed.). London: Psychology Press. [13.2, 13.4, 13.5, 15.2]Google Scholar
Fairclough, N.
(1995/2013) Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. [15.3]Google Scholar
(1992/2015) Language and power (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. [3.7, 15.3]Google Scholar
Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N.
(2012) Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge. [14.3]Google Scholar
Fang, Y.-J.
(2001) Reporting the same events? A critical analysis of Chinese print news media texts. Discourse & Society, 12, 585–613. [14.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
(1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [13.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A.
(2012) Contexts in interaction: Relating pragmatic wastebaskets. In R. Finkbeiner, J. Meibauer & P. B. Schumacher (Eds.), What is a context? Linguistic approaches and challenges (pp. 105–127). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [7.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Context. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics (pp. 259–276). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [7.2]Google Scholar
Fetzer, A., & Meierkord, C.
(Eds.) (2002) Rethinking sequentiality: Linguistics meets conversational interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [9.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A., & Oishi, E.
(Eds.) (2011) Context and contexts. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [7.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Field, J.
(2003) Psycholinguistics: A resource book for students. London: Routledge. [13.5]Google Scholar
Fillenbaum, S.
(1974) Pragmatic normalization: Further results for some conjunctive and disjunctive sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 87, 93–98. [13.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, R., Meibauer, J., & Schumacher, P.
(Eds.) (2012) What is a context? Linguistic approaches and challenges. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [7.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Firbas, J.
(1992) Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [5.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, J.
(2011) Introduction to communication studies (3rd ed.) London: Routledge. [3.4]Google Scholar
Flesch, R.
(1962) The art of readable writing. New York: Wiley. [10.3]Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J., Li, D., & Tran, S.
(2002) Discriminatory news discourse: Some Hong Kong data. Discourse & Society, 13, 319–345. [15.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, J., & Mahlberg, M.
(Eds.) (2009) Lexical cohesion and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [6.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, J., & Richardson, J. E.
(Eds.) (2018) The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies. London: Routledge. [1, 15.3]Google Scholar
Ford, C.
(1986) Overlapping relations in text structure. In S. DeLancey & R. Tomlin (Eds.), Proceedings of the second annual meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference (pp. 107–123). Oregon: University of Oregon. [6.5]Google Scholar
(1993) Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [6.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, H. N.
(1977) Plato in twelve volumes: Vol. 4. Cratilus, Parmenides, Greater Hippias, Lesser Hippias. London: Heinemann. [2.2]Google Scholar
Fowler, R.
(1991) Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London: Routledge. [7.5]Google Scholar
Fowler, R., Hodge, R., Kress, G., & Trew, T.
(1979) Language and control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. [15.3]Google Scholar
Fox, B. A.
(1987) Discourse structure and anaphora: Written and conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [6.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frank, A. W.
(2013) The wounded storyteller: Body, illness, and ethics (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [14.7]Google Scholar
Freeman, M. H.
(2014) Cognitive poetics. In M. Burke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics (pp. 313–328). Oxford: Routledge. [8.6.3]Google Scholar
Frehner, C.
(2008) E-Mail – SMS – MMS: The linguistic creativity of asynchronous discourse in the New Media Age. Bern: Peter Lang. [4.6.3]Google Scholar
Gabriel, Y.
(2015) Narratives and stories in organizational life. In A. de Fina & A. Georgakopoulou (Eds.), The handbook of narrative analysis (pp. 275–292). Malden, MA: Blackwell. [11.5]Google Scholar
Gardiner, A.
(1969) The theory of speech and language (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2.2]Google Scholar
Gee, J. P.
(2014) An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. (4th ed.). London: Routledge. [1]Google Scholar
Gee, J. P., & Handford, M.
(Eds.) (2014) The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Routledge. [1]Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H.
(Eds.) (2007) The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [13.2]Google Scholar
Geis, M.
(1987) The language of politics. New York: Springer. [14.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Genette, G.
(1980) Narrative discourse: An essay in method. Oxford: Blackwell. [7.5]Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A.
(2006) Small and large identities in narrative (inter)action. In A. de Fina, D. Schiffrin & M. Bamberg (Eds.), Discourse and identity (pp. 83–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [11.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Small stories, interaction and identities. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [11.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Small stories research: Methods – analysis – outreach. In A. de Fina & A. Georgakopoulou (Eds.), Handbook of narrative analysis (pp. 255–271). Malden, MA: Blackwell. [11.3]Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A., & Goutsos, D.
(2004) Discourse analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [1]Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A.
(1990) Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Givón, T.
(Eds.) (1995) Coherence in spontaneous text. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [13.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ghadessy, M.
(Ed.) (1993) Register analysis: Theory and practice. London: Pinter. [8.2]Google Scholar
Gibbons, J.
(Ed.) (1994) Language and the law. London: Longman. [14.4]Google Scholar
(2003) Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Malden, MA: Blackwell. [14.4]Google Scholar
Giltrow, J.
(2010) Genre as difference: The sociality of linguistic variation. In H. Dorgeloh & A. Wanner (Eds.), Syntactic variation and genre (pp. 29–51). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [4.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Bridge to genre: Spanning technological change. In C. R. Miller & A. R. Kelly (Eds.), Emerging genres in new media environments (pp. 39–61). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [4.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giltrow, J., & Stein, D.
(Eds.) (2009) Genres in the internet. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [4.6.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
(1989) Mind, code and context: Essays in pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [5.3]Google Scholar
(2005) Context as other minds. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [7.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. M.
(2002) The indexical hypothesis: Meaning from language, world, and image. In N. Allen (Ed.), Working with words and images: New steps in an old dance (pp. 27–42). Westport, CT: Ablex. [4.5]Google Scholar
Goatly, A.
(2000) Critical reading and writing: An introductory coursebook. London: Routledge. [1]Google Scholar
Goddard, A., & Patterson, L.
(2000) Language and gender. London: Routledge. [15.4]Google Scholar
Goetz, E., Anderson, R., & Schallert, D.
(1981) The representation of sentences in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 369–385. [13.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1956) The presentation of self in everyday life. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press. [2.6]Google Scholar
(1967) On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to face behavior (pp. 5–45). Chicago: Aldine. [2.6]Google Scholar
(1974) Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row. [13.3]Google Scholar
(1981) Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell. [2.6]Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., & Bower, G. H.
(Eds.) (1990) Inferences and text comprehension. New York: Academic Press. [7.6]Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Goldman, S. R.
(Eds.) (2003) Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.3]Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z.
(2004) Coh-metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36(2), 193–202. [13.4]Google Scholar
Graumann, C. F., & Kallmeyer, W.
(Eds.) (2002) Perspective and perspectivation in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [7.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Green, G. M.
(1996) Pragmatics and natural language understanding (2nd ed.). New York: Erlbaum. [3.2]Google Scholar
Grice, H. P.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. [2.4]Google Scholar
(1989) Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [2.4]Google Scholar
Grimes, J. E.
(1975) The thread of discourse. The Hague: Mouton. [6.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grosz, B., & Sidner, C.
(1986) Attention, intention and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12, 175–204. [6.5]Google Scholar
Gruber, H., & Redeker, G.
(2014) (Eds.). The pragmatics of discourse coherence: Theories and applications. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [6.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grundy, P.
(2008) Doing pragmatics (3rd ed.). Oxford: Routledge. [2.5, 3.2]Google Scholar
Gumperz, J.
(1982) Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [15.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J., & Levinson, S. C.
(Eds.) (1996) Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [15.2]Google Scholar
Gunnarsson, B. L.
(1984) Functional comprehensibility of legislative texts: Experiments with a Swedish act of parliament. Text, 4, 71–105. [10.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1989) Text comprehensibility and the writing process: The case of law and lawmaking. Written Communication, 6, 86–107. [14.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J.
(1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Bd. 1. Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung [The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. [2.2]Google Scholar
Haiman, J., & Thompson, S.
(Eds.) (1988) Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [6.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
(1978) Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold. [3.6, 8.2]Google Scholar
(2014) Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.), revised by C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. London: Routledge. [3.5, 3.6, 6.2, 15.3]Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R.
(1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman. [6.2.1]Google Scholar
(1985) Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Victoria: Deakin University. [3.6]Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Webster, J. J.
(2014) Text linguistics: The how and why of meaning. Sheffield: Equinox. [3.6, 6.2]Google Scholar
Hamilton, M., Hunter, J., & Burgoon, M.
(1990) An empirical test of an axiomatic model of the relationship between language intensity and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9, 235–255. [8.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hargie, O., Tourish, D., & Wilson, N.
(2002) Communication audits and the effects of increased information: A follow-up study. Journal of Business Communication, 39, 414–436. [10.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harley, T. A.
(2014) The psychology of language: From data to theory (4th ed.). London: Psychology Press. [13.2]Google Scholar
Harris, Z.
(1952) Discourse analysis. Language, 28, 1–30. [1, 15.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hart, C., & Cap, P.
(Eds.) (2014) Contemporary critical discourse studies. London: Bloomsbury. [15.3]Google Scholar
Have, P. ten
(2007) Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2nd ed.). London: Sage. [9.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haviland, S. E., & Clark, H. H.
(1974) What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 512–521. [7.6.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J. R.
(1996) A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.5]Google Scholar
(2012) Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369–388. [13.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S.
(1986) Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106–1113. [13.5, 13.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heisler, T.
(1996) OK, a dynamic discourse marker in Montreal French. In J. Arnold, R. Blake, B. Davidson, S. Schwenter & J. Solomon (Eds.), Sociolinguistic variation: Data, theory and analysis (pp. 293–312). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [9.5]Google Scholar
Hellinger, M., & Bußmann, H.
(Eds.) (2003) Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men (3 vols.). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [15.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S.
(2010) Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Chichester: Blackwell. [9.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herman, D.
(2009) Basic elements of narrative. Oxford: Blackwell. [11.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herring, S.
(1996) Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [4.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herring, S., & Androutsopoulos, J.
(2015) Computer-mediated discourse 2.0. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed.) (pp. 127–151). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. [4.6.1]Google Scholar
Herring, S., Stein, D., & Virtanen, T.
(Eds.) (2013) Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [4.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heyd, T.
(2008) Email hoaxes: Form, function, genre ecology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [4.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, D.
(Ed.) (1996) Discourse, learning, and schooling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [14.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hillocks, G.
(1986) Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. New York: NCRE. [13.5]Google Scholar
Hodge, R., & Kress, G.
(1993) Language as ideology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. [15.3]Google Scholar
Hoeken, H.
(2001) Convincing citizens: The role of argument quality. In D. Janssen & R. Neutelings (Eds.), Reading and writing public documents (pp. 147–169). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [12.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoey, M.
(1983) On the surface of discourse. London: Allen & Unwin. [5.3, 6.3]Google Scholar
(1991) Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [5.6]Google Scholar
(2001) Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis. London: Routledge. [1]Google Scholar
Hoffmann, C. R.
(Ed.) (2010) Narrative revisited: Telling a story in the age of new media. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [11.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Cohesive profiling: Meaning and interaction in personal weblogs. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [4.6.3, 6.2.1]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, C. R., & Bublitz, W.
(Eds.) (2017) Pragmatics of social media. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [4.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, L.
(1983) Kommunikation vor Gericht [Communication before the court]. Tübingen: Narr. [14.4]Google Scholar
Hofstede, G.
(2001) Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). London: Sage. [15.6]Google Scholar
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M.
(2010) Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. [15.6]Google Scholar
Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J.
(Eds.) (2012) Varieties of narrative analysis. London: Sage. [11.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hosman, L., Huebner, T., & Siltanen, S.
(2002) The impact of power-of-speech style, argument strength, and need for cognition on impression formation, cognitive responses, and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 361–379. [12.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hovy, E., & Scott, D.
(Eds.) (1996) Computational and conversational discourse: Burning issues: An interdisciplinary account. Berlin: Springer. [6.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y.
(2014) Pragmatics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2.4, 3.2, 7.2, 7.3, 7.6.1]Google Scholar
Humboldt, W. von
(1836) Ueber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts (Bd. 7) [On the variety of human language construction and its influence on the mental development of mankind (Vol. 7)]. Berlin: Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. [8.2, 15.2]Google Scholar
Hunt, K. W.
(1970) Syntactic maturity in schoolchildren and adults. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 35, 1–67. [13.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R.
(2008) Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press. [9.2, 9.4]Google Scholar
Hyland, K.
(2005) Metadiscourse. London: Continuum. [10.2]Google Scholar
(2009) Academic discourse: English in a global context. London: Continuum. [10.2]Google Scholar
Hymes, D.
(1972) Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35–71). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. [3.5]Google Scholar
Jackson, J.
(Ed.) (2012) The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication. London: Routledge. [15.6]Google Scholar
(2014) Introducing language and intercultural communication. London: Routledge. [15.6]Google Scholar
Jakobs, E.-M., & Perrin, D.
(Eds.) (2014) Handbook of writing and text production. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [13.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1960) Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [4.2, 8.5]Google Scholar
Jansen, C., & Steehouder, M.
(2001) How research can lead to better government forms. In D. Janssen & R. Neutelings (Eds.), Reading and writing public documents (pp. 12–36). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [14.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, D., & Neutelings, R.
(Eds.) (2001) Reading and writing public documents. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [14.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jarvella, R.
(1971) Syntactic processing of connected speech. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 409–416. [13.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaworski, A.
(Ed.) (1997) Silence: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [9.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaworski, A., & Coupland, N.
(2014) The discourse reader (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. [1]Google Scholar
Jefferson, G.
(1978) Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219–248). New York: Academic Press. [9.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jeffries, L., & McIntyre, D.
(2010) Stylistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [8.4, 8.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O.
(1924/2007) The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin. [2.2]Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N.
(1983) Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [3.7, 13.2]Google Scholar
Johnstone, B.
(2016) ‘Oral versions of personal experience’: Labovian narrative analysis and its uptake. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(4), 542–560. [11.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Discourse analysis (3rd ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. [1.1, 3.5, 3.7]Google Scholar
Jonassen, D.
(1982) Advance organizers in text. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), The technology of text (pp. 253–275). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology. [5.5]Google Scholar
Jones, J. G., & Simons, H. W.
(2017) Persuasion in society (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. [12.5]Google Scholar
Jones, R. H.
(2012) Discourse analysis: A resource book for students. Oxford: Routledge. [1]Google Scholar
Jones, S.
(Ed.) (1995) Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [4.6]Google Scholar
Jong, M. de, & Schellens, P.
(1997) Reader-focused text-evaluation: An overview of goals and methods. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11, 402–432. [10.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A.
(2002) Hypertextlinguistics: Textuality and typology of hypertexts. In A. Fischer, G. Tottie & H. M. Lehmann (Eds.), Text types and corpora: Studies in honour of Udo Fries (pp. 29–51). Tübingen: Narr. [4.6.2]Google Scholar
Jucker, A., & Smith, S.
(1998) And people just you know like ‘wow’: Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In A. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory (pp. 171–202). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [9.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A., & Taavitsainen, I.
(2013) English historical pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [7.3]Google Scholar
Jucker, A., & Ziv, Y.
(Eds.) (1998) Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [9.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J.
(2008) Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics and speech recognition (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. [6.2, 13.4]Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M.
(2013) Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kallmeyer, W., et al.
(1980) Lektürekolleg zur Textlinguistik. Bd. 1. Einführung [Lecture on text linguistics: Vol. 1. Introduction]. Königstein: Athenäum. [6.2]Google Scholar
Katz Bourns, S., & Myers, L.
(Eds.) (2014) Perspectives on linguistic structure and context. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [7.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, G. A.
(1994) A new history of classical rhetoric. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [8.2]Google Scholar
Kent, T.
(Ed.) (1999) Post-process theory: Beyond the writing-process paradigm. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. [13.6]Google Scholar
Kintsch, W.
(1988) The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. [13.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998) Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [5.2, 13.4]Google Scholar
Kintsch, W., & Dijk, T. A. van
(1978) Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological review, 85, 363–394. [13.3, 13.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W., & Vipond, D.
(1979) Reading comprehension and readability in educational practice and psychological theory. In L. G. Nilsson (Ed.), Perspectives on memory research (pp. 329–365). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [5.2, 10.3]Google Scholar
Kirsch, G., & Roen, D. H.
(1990) A sense of audience in written communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [13.5]Google Scholar
Klein-Braley, C.
(1982) On the suitability of cloze tests as measures of reading comprehension. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 13, 49–61. [10.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Knott, A.
(1993) Using cue phrases to determine a set of rhetorical relations. In O. Rambow (Ed.), Intentionality and structure in discourse relations: Proceedings of the ACL SIGGEN Workshop (pp. 48–51). Columbus: Ohio State University. [6.5]Google Scholar
Knott, A., & Sanders, T.
(1998) The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 135–175. [6.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, J.-P.
(Ed.) (1998) Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap. Stanford, CA: CSLI. [13.3]Google Scholar
Koester, A.
(2010) Workplace discourse. London: Continuum. [14.1, 14.2]Google Scholar
Koller, V.
(2008) Lesbian discourses: Images of a community. New York: Routledge. [15.4]Google Scholar
König, E., & Pfister, M.
(2017) Literary analysis and linguistics. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. [8.5]Google Scholar
Kotthoff, H., & Spencer-Oatey, H.
(Eds.) (2007) Handbook of intercultural communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [15.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kress, G.
(1989) Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [3.6, 6.2]Google Scholar
(2010) Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge. [4.5]Google Scholar
Kress, G., & Leeuwen, T. van
(2001) Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold. [4.5]Google Scholar
(2006) Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. [4.5]Google Scholar
Krieken, K. van, & Sanders, J.
(2017) Framing narrative journalism as a new genre: A case study of the Netherlands. Journalism, 18(10), 1364–1380. [11.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, S.
(1987) Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [7.5]Google Scholar
Kuppevelt, J. van
(1995) Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. Journal of Linguistics, 31, 109–147. [4.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kurzon, D.
(1998) Discourse of silence. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [9.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kyratzis, A.
(1999) Narrative identity: Preschoolers’ self-construction through narrative in friendship group dramatic play. Narrative Inquiry, 9, 427–455. [11.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W.
(1972) Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. [11.3]Google Scholar
(2013) The language of life and death: The transformation of experience in oral narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [11.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W., & Waletzky, J.
(1967) Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts (pp. 12–44). Seattle: University of Washington Press. [11.3]Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [15.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [8.6.3]Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. T.
(1975/2004) Language and woman’s place: Text and commentaries (revised and expanded ed.), edited by Mary Bucholtz. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [15.4]Google Scholar
Lambrou, M.
(2014) Stylistics, conversation analysis and the cooperative principle. In M. Burke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics (pp. 136–154). Oxford: Routledge. [8.6.2]Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(2002) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar (2nd ed.). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [13.2]Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [13.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lanham, R. A.
(1991) A handlist of rhetorical terms (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. [8.2]Google Scholar
Lasswell, H.
(1948) The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas. New York: Harper and Row. [12.4]Google Scholar
Lavendera, B.
(1988) The study of language in its socio-cultural context. In F. J. Newmeyer (Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey. Vol. 4. Language: The socio-cultural context (pp. 1–13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [15.6]Google Scholar
Leap, W. L.
(2015) Queer linguistics as critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed.) (pp. 661–680). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. [15.4]Google Scholar
Leech, G.
(1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. [2.4, 2.6, 3.2]Google Scholar
(2008) Language in literature: Style and foregrounding. London: Routledge. [8.5]Google Scholar
(2014) The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leeuwen, T. van
(1996) The representation of social actors. In C. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 32–70). London: Routledge. [15.3]Google Scholar
(2005) Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge. [4.5]Google Scholar
(2015) Multimodality. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed.) (pp. 447–465). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. [4.5]Google Scholar
Lentz, L., & Pander Maat, H.
(Eds.) (1997) Discourse analysis and evaluation: Functional approaches. Amsterdam: Rodopi. [10.5]Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M.
(1982) Cognitive styles in the use of spatial direction terms. In R. J. Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 251–268). Chichester: Wiley. [7.3]Google Scholar
(1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [7.3, 13.5]Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2.6, 3.2, 7.3, 7.6, 9.3, 9.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Deixis. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 97–121). Oxford: Blackwell. [7.3]Google Scholar
(2017) Speech acts. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics (pp. 199–216). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2.3]Google Scholar
Levy, M., & Randell, S.
(Eds.) (1996) The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.6]Google Scholar
Lewis, D.
(2002) Convention. Oxford: Blackwell. [3.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liddicoat, A. J.
(2011) An introduction to conversation analysis. London: Continuum. [9.2, 9.4, 11.3]Google Scholar
Liebert, W.-A., Redeker, G., & Waugh, L.
(Eds.) (1997) Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [13.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Limberg, H.
(2010) The interactional organization of academic talk: Office hour consultations. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [10.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Linde, C.
(1993) Life stories: The creation of coherence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [11.5]Google Scholar
(2008) Working the past: Narrative and institutional memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [11.5]Google Scholar
Litosseliti, L., & Sunderland, J.
(Eds.) (2002) Gender identity and discourse analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [15.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Locher, M. A.
(2014) Electronic discourse. In K. P. Schneider & A. Barron (Eds.), Pragmatics of discourse (pp. 555–581). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [4.6, 4.6.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Longacre, R. E.
(1996) The grammar of discourse (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum Press. [6.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Louwerse, M., & Peer, W. van der
(Eds.) (2002) Thematics: Interdisciplinary studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [5.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luff, P., & Heath, C.
(2015) Transcribing embodied action. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed.) (pp. 367–390). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. [9.2]Google Scholar
Luhmann, N.
(1970 and 1975) Soziologische Aufklärung (Bd. 1 & 2) [Sociological enlightenment (Vols. 1 & 2)]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. [14.2]Google Scholar
Macdonell, D.
(1986) Theories of discourse: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. [3.7]Google Scholar
Mahlberg, M.
(2013) Corpus stylistics and Dickens’s fiction. New York: Routledge. [8.6]Google Scholar
(2014) Corpus stylistics. In M. Burke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics (pp. 378–392). Oxford: Routledge. [8.6.1]Google Scholar
Maier, R. M., Hofmockel, C., & Fetzer, A.
(2016) The negotiation of discourse relations in context: Co-constructing degrees of overtness. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(1), 71–105. [7.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, B.
(1930) The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning (pp. 296–336). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. [4.2]Google Scholar
Mandler, J. M., & Johnson, N. S.
(1977) Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111–151. [11.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A.
(1988) Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organisation. Text, 8, 243–281. [6.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Eds.) (1992) Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [1]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Deux perspectives sur la théorie de la structure Rhétorique [Two views of Rhetorical Structure Theory]. Verbum, 23, 9–30. [6.4]Google Scholar
Markee, N.
(Ed.) (2015) The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction. Malden, MA: Blackwell. [14.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marmaridou, S.
(2000) Pragmatic meaning and cognition. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [7.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J.
(1992) English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [3.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Cohesion and texture. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. [6.2]Google Scholar
Martin, J., & Rose, D.
(2007) Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.). London: Bloomsbury Academic. [3.6]Google Scholar
Mayer, R.
(1979) Twenty years of research on advance organizers: Assimilation theory is still the best predictor of results. Instructional Science, 8, 133–167. [5.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, A.
(2008) Language and power: An introduction to institutional discourse. London: Continuum. [14.1]Google Scholar
(2015) Institutional discourse. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 755–774). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. [14.2]Google Scholar
McCarthy, M.
(1991) Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [1]Google Scholar
McCroskey, J. C.
(2006) An introduction to rhetorical communication: A Western rhetorical perspective (9th ed.). London: Routledge. [12.2]Google Scholar
McIntyre, D.
(2014) Characterisation. In P. Stockwell & S. Whiteley (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of stylistics (pp. 149–164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [8.6.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, D., & Busse, B.
(Eds.) (2010) Language and style. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [8.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, M. L.
(1984) Conversation: How talk is organized. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. [9.3]Google Scholar
McMenamin, G.
(2002) Forensic linguistics: Advances in forensic stylistics. Boca Raton: CRC. [8.4, 14.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S.
(Ed.) (2007) Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [13.2]Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J.
(2009) Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 297–384. [13.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, J.
(2012) What is a context? Theoretical and empirical evidence. In R. Finkbeiner, J. Meibauer & P. Schumacher (Eds.), What is a context? Linguistic approaches and challenges (pp. 9–32). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [7.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. R.
(1984) Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151–167. [4.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Where do genres come from? In C. R. Miller & A. R. Kelly (Eds.), Emerging genres in new media environments (pp. 1–34). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [4.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G.
(1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97. [13.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mishler, E.
(1984) The discourse of medicine. Norwoord, NJ: Ablex. [14.7]Google Scholar
Mondada, L.
(2013) The conversation analytic approach to data collection. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 32–56). Chichester: Blackwell. [9.2]Google Scholar
Moore, J., & Pollack, M.
(1992) A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis. Computational Linguistics, 18, 537–544. [6.5]Google Scholar
Morris, C.
(1938) Foundations of the theory of signs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [3.2]Google Scholar
Morris, P.
(Ed.) (1994) The Bakhtin reader: Selected writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev and Voloshinov. London: Arnold. [2.5, 4.3]Google Scholar
Moser, M., & Moore, J.
(1996) Toward a synthesis of two accounts of discourse structure. Computational Linguistics, 22, 409–419. [6.5]Google Scholar
Motschenbacher, H.
(2010) Language, gender and sexual identity: Poststructuralist perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [15.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, S.
(2005) Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [9.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Myers, G.
(2010) Discourse of blogs and wikis. London: Continuum. [4.6]Google Scholar
Myers, J. L., & O’Brien, E. J.
(1998) Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131–157. [13.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, S., & Fest, J.
(2016) Cohesive devices across registers and varieties: The role of medium in English. In C. Schubert & C. Sanchez-Stockhammer (Eds.), Variational text linguistics: Revisiting register in English (pp. 195–220). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [6.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ng, S. H., & Bradac, J. J.
(1993) Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [15.3]Google Scholar
Nielsen, J.
(1999) Designing web usability: The practice of simplicity. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Press. [4.6]Google Scholar
Niemeier, S., & Dirven, R.
(Eds.) (2000) Evidence for linguistic relativity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [15.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nofsinger, R. E.
(1991) Everyday conversation. London: Sage. [9.4]Google Scholar
Noordman, L., & Vonk, W.
(1992) Reader’s knowledge and the control of inferences in reading. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7, 373–391. [7.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) Discourse comprehension. In A. Friederici (Ed.), Language comprehension: A biological perspective (pp. 229–263). Berlin: Springer. [13.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nørgaard, N., Busse, B. & Montoro, R.
(2010) Key terms in stylistics. London: Continuum. [8.3, 8.6]Google Scholar
Nunan, D.
(1993) Introducing discourse analysis. London: Penguin. [1]Google Scholar
Nystrand, M.
(1986) The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. [4.3]Google Scholar
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A.
(Eds.) (1996) Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [9.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Keefe, D. J.
(2016) Persuasion: Theory and research (3rd ed.). London: Sage. [12.1, 12.5]Google Scholar
Ordóñez-López, P., & Edo-Marzá, N.
(Eds.) (2016) Medical discourse in professional, academic and popular settings. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. [14.7]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Orr, J.
(1996) Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. London: Cornell University Press. [11.5]Google Scholar
Ortony, A.
(Ed.) (1993) Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [8.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, C.
(1971) Where do sentences come from? In D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology (pp. 497–529). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [7.4.2]Google Scholar
Otero, J., León, J. A., & Graesser, A. C.
(Eds.) (2002) The psychology of science text comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.3]Google Scholar
Padilla Cruz, M.
(Ed.) (2016) Relevance theory: Recent developments, current challenges and future directions. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [2.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Page, R.
(2012) Stories and social media: Identities and interaction. Abingdon: Routledge. [11.3]Google Scholar
Paltridge, B.
(2012) Discourse analysis (2nd ed.). London: Bloomsbury. [1]Google Scholar
Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S.
(Eds.) (2013) The handbook of English for specific purposes. Chichester: Blackwell. [10.2]Google Scholar
Partington, A., Duguid, A., & Taylor, C.
(2013) Patterns and meanings in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [5.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peccei, J. S.
(1999) Pragmatics. London: Routledge. [3.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S.
(1992) The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings. 2 vols. Ed. N. Houser & C. Kloesel. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [3.2]Google Scholar
Pemberton, L., & Shurville, S.
(Eds.) (2000) Words on the web: Computer-mediated communication. Exeter: Intellect. [4.6]Google Scholar
Pericles Trifonas, P.
(Ed.) (2015) International handbook of semiotics. Dordrecht: Springer. [3.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T.
(1986) Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer. [12.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Philips, S.
(1998) Ideology in the language of judges: How judges practice law, politics and courtroom control. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [14.4]Google Scholar
Piller, I.
(2011) Intercultural communication: A critical introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [15.6]Google Scholar
Platt, F. W.
(Ed.) (1995) Conversation repair: Case studies in doctor-patient communication. Boston: Little, Brown. [14.7]Google Scholar
Polanyi, L., & Berg, M. H. van den
(1996) Discourse structure and discourse contexts. In P. Dekker & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 113–131). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. [5.5]Google Scholar
Ponterotto, D.
(2003) The cohesive role of cognitive metaphor in discourse and conversation. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 283–298). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [8.6.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Price, J., & Price, L.
(2002) Hot text: Web writing that works. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Press. [4.6]Google Scholar
Prince, E. F.
(1981) Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223–255). New York: Academic Press. [7.4.2, 11.4]Google Scholar
(1997) On the functions of left-dislocation in English discourse. In A. Kamio (Ed.), Directions in functional linguistics (pp. 117–143). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [7.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Propp, V. J.
(1968) Morphology of the folktale (2nd ed.). (S. Pírková-Jakobsonová, Ed., L. Scott, Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University. (Original work published 1928) [11.2]Google Scholar
(1984) Theory and history of folklore (A. Liberman, Ed., A. Martin & P. Martin, Trans.). Manchester: Manchester University Press. (Original work published 1946) [11.2]Google Scholar
Queen, R.
(2014) Language and sexual identities. In S. Ehrlich, M. Meyerhoff & J. Holmes (Eds.), The handbook of language, gender, and sexuality (pp. 203–219) (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell. [15.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Queneau, R.
(1947/1981) Exercises in style (B. Wright, Trans.). New York: New Directions. [8.2]Google Scholar
Raffler-Engel, W. von
(Ed.) (1990) Doctor-patient interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [14.7]Google Scholar
Rambow, O.
(Ed.) (1993) Intentionality and structure in discourse relations: Proceedings of the ACL SIGGEN Workshop. Columbus: Ohio State University. [6.5]Google Scholar
Reid, T. B. W.
(1956) Linguistics, structuralism and philology. Archivum Linguisticum, 8, 28–37. [8.2]Google Scholar
Reisigl, M.
(2014) Argumentation analysis and the discourse-historical approach: A methodological framework. In C. Hart & P. Cap (Eds.), Contemporary critical discourse studies (pp. 67–96). London: Bloomsbury. [15.3]Google Scholar
(2018) The discourse-historical approach. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 44–59). New York: Routledge. [15.5]Google Scholar
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R.
(2001) Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. [15.5]Google Scholar
Renkema, J.
(1984) Text linguistics and media: An experimental inquiry into coloured news reporting. In W. van Peer & J. Renkema (Eds.), Pragmatics and stylistics (pp. 317–371). Leuven: Acco. [7.5]Google Scholar
(2009a) The texture of discourse: Towards an outline of connectivity theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [6.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Improving the quality of governmental documents: A combined academic and professional approach. In W. Cheng & K. C. C. Kong (Eds.), Professional communication: Collaboration between academics and practitioners (pp. 173–190). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. [10.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2009c) Discourse, of course: An overview of research in discourse studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [1]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Renkema, J., & Hoeken, H.
(1998) The influence of negative newspaper publicity on corporate image in the Netherlands. Journal of Business Communication, 35, 521–535. [14.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, J. E.
(2007) Analysing newspapers: An approach from critical discourse analysis. London: Palgrave Macmillan. [14.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rijn-van Tongeren, G. van
(1997) Metaphors in medical texts. Amsterdam: Rodopi. [14.7]Google Scholar
Roberts, C., Davies, E., & Jupp, T.
(1992) Language and discrimination: A study of communication in multi-ethnic workplaces. London: Longman. [15.5]Google Scholar
Roque, G.
(Ed.) (2012) Special issue: Persuasion and argumentation. Argumentation: An International Journal on Reasoning, 26(1). [12.1]Google Scholar
Rouet, J.-F., Levonen, J., & Dillon, A.
(Eds.) (1996) Hypertext and cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [4.6]Google Scholar
Roulet, E.
(1984) Speech acts, discourse structure, and pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 31–47. [4.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Jefferson, G., & Schegloff, E. A.
(1992) Lectures on conversation (2 vols.). Oxford: Blackwell. [9.2, 11.3]Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. [9.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salkie, R.
(1995) Text and discourse analysis. London: Routledge. [1]Google Scholar
Sanders, T., Schilperoord, J., & Spooren, W.
(Eds.) (2001) Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [6.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, T., & Spooren, W.
(1999) Communicative intentions and coherence relations. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk & E. Ventola (Eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 235–250). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [6.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, T., Spooren, W., & Noordman, L.
(1992) Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15, 1–36. [6.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sanford, A. J.
(1990) On the nature of text-driven inference. In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d’Arcais & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 515–535). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [7.6]Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C.
(1981) Understanding written language: Explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence. Chichester: Wiley. [6.2, 7.6, 13.3]Google Scholar
Sapir, E.
(1949) Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture, and personality. Berkeley: University of California Press. [15.2]Google Scholar
Sarangi, S., & Slembrouck, S.
(1996) Language, bureaucracy & social control. London: Longman. [14.5]Google Scholar
Sbisà, M., & Turner, K.
(Eds.) (2013) Pragmatics of speech actions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [2.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P.
(1977) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.3]Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Lebowitz, M.
(1980) Levels of understanding in computers and people. Poetics, 9, 251–273. [13.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.
(1977) On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In W. Dressler (Ed.), Current trends in textlinguistics (pp. 81–102). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [9.4]Google Scholar
(2007) Sequence organization in interaction. Vol. 1: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [9.2, 9.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Conversational interaction: The embodiment of human sociality. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed.) (pp. 346–366). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. [9.3, 9.4]Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H.
(1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327. [9.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D.
(1987) Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [9.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) Stories in answer to questions in research interviews. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, 129–137. [11.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schleppegrell, M. J.
(2014) Systemic functional linguistics. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 21–34). Oxford: Routledge. [3.6]Google Scholar
Schmolz, H.
(2015) Anaphora resolution and text retrieval: A linguistic analysis of hypertexts. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [4.6.2, 6.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, K. P., & Barron, A.
(Eds.) (2008) Variational pragmatics: A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [15.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Eds.) (2014) Pragmatics of discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [1]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schriver, K.
(1997) Dynamics in document design: Creating text for readers. New York: Wiley [10.4]Google Scholar
(2017) Plain language in the US gains momentum: 1940–2015. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(4), 343–383. [14.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schubert, C.
(2014) Cognitive categorization and prototypicality as persuasive strategies: Presidential rhetoric in the USA. Journal of Language and Politics, 13(2), 313–335. [14.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Introduction: Current trends in register research. In C. Schubert & C. Sanchez-Stockhammer (Eds.), Variational text linguistics: Revisiting register in English (pp. 1–15). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [8.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017a) Constructing Mexican stereotypes: Telecinematic discourse and Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric. CADAAD Journal: Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines, 8(2), 37–57. [15.5]Google Scholar
(2017b) Discourse and cohesion. In C. R. Hoffmann & W. Bublitz (Eds.), Pragmatics of social media (pp. 317–344). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [4.6.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schubert, C., & Sanchez-Stockhammer, C.
(Eds.) (2016) Variational text linguistics: Revisiting register in English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [8.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schubert, C., & Volkmann, L.
(Eds.) (2016) Pragmatic perspectives on postcolonial discourse: Linguistics and literature. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars [8.6.2]Google Scholar
Scollon, R., Scollon, S., & Jones, R.
(2001/2012) Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. [15.6]Google Scholar
Searle, J. R.
(1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2.3.1, 2.3.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1975) Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol 3: Speech Acts (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press. [2.3.2]Google Scholar
(1976) A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23. [2.3.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R., et al.
(1992) (On) Searle on conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [9.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Semino, E., & Culpeper, J.
(Eds.) (2002) Cognitive stylistics: Language and cognition in text analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [8.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W.
(1949) The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. [3.4]Google Scholar
Shmelev, A.
(2001) Manipulation in Russian political journalism. Studies in Communication Sciences, 1, 101–116. [14.3]Google Scholar
Short, M.
(1996) Exploring the language of poems, plays and prose. London: Longman. [8.6.2]Google Scholar
(2014) Analysing dialogue. In P. Stockwell & S. Whiteley (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of stylistics (pp. 344–359). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [8.6.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shuy, R. W.
(1993) Language crimes: The use and abuse of language evidence in the courtroom. Oxford: Blackwell. [14.4]Google Scholar
Sidnell, J.
(2010) Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. [9.2, 9.4, 9.5]Google Scholar
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T.
(Eds.) (2013) The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. [9.2]Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M.
(2014) Systemic-functional approaches to discourse. In K. P. Schneider & A. Barron (Eds.), Pragmatics of discourse (pp. 125–163). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [3.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Singer, M.
(1990) Psychology of language: An introduction to sentence and discourse processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.2]Google Scholar
Smith, N., & Wilson, D.
(1979) Modern linguistics: The results of Chomsky’s revolution. Brighton: Harvester Press. [2.5]Google Scholar
Smith, R. C.
(1996) The patient’s story: Integrated patient-doctor interviewing. Boston: Little, Brown. [14.7]Google Scholar
Sotirova, V.
(Ed.) (2016) The Bloomsbury companion to stylistics. London: Bloomsbury. [8.3]Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1986/1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. [2.5]Google Scholar
Statham, S.
(2016) Redefining trial by media: Towards a critical-forensic linguistic interface. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [14.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stede, M.
(2012) Discourse processing. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool [5.6]Google Scholar
Stein, N. L., & Policastro, M.
(1984) The concept of a story: A comparison between children’s and teachers’ viewpoints. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Comprehension of text (pp. 113–155). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [11.4]Google Scholar
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., Ruiter, J. P. de, Yoon, K.-E., & Levinson, S. C.
(2009) Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. PNAS, 106(26), 10587–10592. [9.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, P.
(2002) Cognitive poetics: An introduction. London: Routledge. [8.6.3]Google Scholar
Stockwell, P., & Whiteley, S.
(Ed.) (2014) The Cambridge handbook of stylistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [8.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, S., & Feiz, P.
(2014) Discourse analysis: Putting our worlds into words. New York: Routledge. [1]Google Scholar
Strunk, W., & White, E.
(2000) The elements of style (4th ed.). Boston: Ellyn and Bacon. [8.4]Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. W.
(1983) Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford: Blackwell. [1, 3.7]Google Scholar
(1996) Text and corpus analysis: Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford: Blackwell. [14.2]Google Scholar
(2014) Quantitative methods in literary linguistics. In P. Stockwell & S. Whiteley (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of stylistics (pp. 46–62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [8.6.1]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stukker, N., Spooren, W., & Steen, G.
(Eds.) (2016) Genre in language, discourse and cognition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [6.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stygall, G.
(2012) Discourse in the US courtroom. In P. Tiersma & L. M. Solan (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and law (pp. 369–380). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [14.4]Google Scholar
Sumner, W. G.
(1906) Folkways. New York: Dover Publications. [14.2]Google Scholar
Sunderland, J.
(2006) Language and gender: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge. [15.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svartvik, J., & Quirk, R.
(Eds.) (1980) A corpus of English conversation. Lund: CWK Gleerup. [9.2, 9.3]Google Scholar
Swales, J.
(1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [4.4]Google Scholar
Sweetser, E.
(1990) From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [6.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taboada, M.
(2004) Building coherence and cohesion: Task-oriented dialogue in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [6.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taboada, M., & Mann, W. C.
(2006a) Rhetorical structure theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies, 8, 423–459. [6.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006b) Applications of rhetorical structure theory. Discourse Studies, 8, 567–588. [6.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tagg, C.
(2012) The discourse of text messaging: Analysis of SMS communication. London: Continuum. [4.6]Google Scholar
Tannen, D.
(1988) Linguistics in context: Connecting observation and understanding. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. [3.7]Google Scholar
(1994) Gender and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [15.4]Google Scholar
Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. E., & Schiffrin, D.
(Eds.) (2015) The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. [1]Google Scholar
Tanskanen, S.-K.
(2006) Collaborating towards coherence: Lexical cohesion in English discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [6.2.1, 6.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
(1993) Rethinking the theory of organizational communication: How to read an organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. [14.2]Google Scholar
Thurlow, C., & Mroczek, K.
(Eds.) (2011) Digital discourse: Language in the new media. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [4.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tiersma, P. M. & Solan, L. M.
(Eds.) (2012) The Oxford handbook of language and law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [14.4]Google Scholar
Titjen, F.
(2018) Language and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [15.4]Google Scholar
Toolan, M.
(2001) Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. [11.3]Google Scholar
(Ed.) (2002) Critical discourse analysis: Critical concepts in linguistics (4 vols.). London: Routledge. [15.3]Google Scholar
(2016) Making sense of narrative text: Situation, repetition, and picturing in the reading of short stories. New York: Routledge. [11.4]Google Scholar
Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D.
(Eds.) (1999) Knowing what to write: Cognitive perspectives on conceptual processes in text production. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. [13.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, S. E.
(1958/2003) The uses of argument (updated ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [12.2]Google Scholar
Tseng, C.-I.
(2013) Cohesion in film: Tracking film elements. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. [6.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tufte, V.
(1971) Grammar as style. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. [8.4]Google Scholar
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H.-J.
(2006) An introduction to cognitive linguistics (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education. [13.2]Google Scholar
Uyl, M. den
(1983) A cognitive perspective on text coherence. In K. Ehlich & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Connectedness in sentence, discourse and text (pp. 259–283). Tilburg: Tilburg University. [3.7]Google Scholar
Vanderveken, D., & Kubo, S.
(Eds.) (2001) Essays in speech act theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [2.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vanneste, A.
(1980) Unité et multiplicité dans la langue: Essai d’introduction à la problématique de la norme et de la variabilité [Unity and multiplicity in language: Introduction to the problems of norm and variability] (3 vols.). Brussel: Vrije Universiteit. [3.3, 3.5]Google Scholar
Ventola, E., Charles, C., & Kaltenbacher, M.
(Eds.) (2004) Perspectives on multimodality. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [4.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J.
(1999) Understanding pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [3.2]Google Scholar
Verschueren, J., Östman, J. O., & Blommaert, J.
(Eds.) (1995) Handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [3.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Virtanen, T.
(2010) Variation across texts and discourses: Theoretical and methodological perspectives on text type and genre. In H. Dorgeloh & A. Wanner (Eds.), Syntactic variation and genre (pp. 53–84). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [10.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vonk, W., & Noordman, L.
(1990) On the control of inferences in text understanding. In D. Balota, G. Flores d’Arcais & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 447–464). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [7.6]Google Scholar
Vorderer, P., Wulff, H., & Friedrichsen, M.
(Eds.) (1996) Suspense: Conceptualizations, theoretical analyses, and empirical explorations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [11.4]Google Scholar
Waes, L. van, Woudstra, E., & Hoven, P. van den
(Eds.) (1994) Functional communication quality. Amsterdam: Rodopi. [10.5]Google Scholar
Wales, K.
(1988) Back to the future: Bakhtin, stylistics and discourse. In W. van Peer (Ed.), The taming of the text (pp. 176–192). London: Routledge. [4.3]Google Scholar
Walsh, S.
(2011) Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. London: Routledge. [14.2]Google Scholar
Walton, D. N.
(1987) Informal fallacies: Towards a theory of argument criticisms. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [12.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [12.5]Google Scholar
Watson Todd, R.
(2016) Discourse topics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [5.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watts, R. J.
(2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D.
(1967/2011) Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: Norton. [3.2]Google Scholar
Weaver, C. A., Mannes, S., & Fletcher, C. R.
(Eds.) (1995) Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.3]Google Scholar
Weber, J. J.
(Ed.) (1996) The stylistics reader: From Roman Jakobson to the present. London: Arnold. [8.6]Google Scholar
Wegener, P.
(1885/1991) Untersuchungen über die Grundfragen des Sprachlebens: Reprint from the 1885 edition [Inquiries into the fundamental questions of language survival]. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [2.2]Google Scholar
Werlich, E.
(1982) A text grammar of English. Heidelberg: Quelle and Meyer. [3.7, 4.2, 10.2]Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L.
(1956/2012) Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (2nd ed.), edited by J. B. Carroll, S. C. Levinson & P. Lee. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. [15.2]Google Scholar
Widdowson, H.
(1998) The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 19, 136–151. [15.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [1, 3.7, 6.2]Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
(1986) Does language reflect culture? Evidence from Australian English. Language in Society, 15, 349–374. [15.2]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wijk, C. van
(1999) Conceptual processes in argumentation: A developmental perspective. In M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 31–50). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. [13.5]Google Scholar
Wildfeuer, J.
(2014) Film discourse interpretation: Towards a new paradigm for multimodal film analysis. London: Routledge. [4.5]Google Scholar
Wilson, D.
(2017) Relevance theory. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics (pp. 79–100). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2.5]Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(2012) Relevance and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winter, E.
(1976) Fundamentals of information structure: Pilot manual for further development according to student need (Mimeograph). Hatfield: Hatfield Polytechnic. [5.3]Google Scholar
Witte, S. P.
(1987) Pre-text and composing. College Composition and Communication, 38, 397–425. [13.6]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, R.
(1996) Disorders of discourse. London: Longman. [14.7]Google Scholar
(Ed.) (1997) Gender and discourse. London: Sage. [15.4]Google Scholar
(2015) The politics of fear: What right-wing populist discourses mean. London: Sage. [15.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M.
(Eds.) (2016) Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). London: Sage. [15.3]Google Scholar
Wodak, R., & Richardson, J. E.
(Eds.) (2013) Analyzing fascist discourse: European fascism in talk and text. New York: Routledge. [15.5]Google Scholar
Yang, A.
(1989) Cohesive chains and writing quality. Word, 40, 235–254. [10.5]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yates, S.
(1996) Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: A corpus based study. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 28–46). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [4.6.1]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yule, G.
(2014) The study of language (5th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [15.2]Google Scholar
Yus, F.
(2011) Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated communication in context. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [4.6.3]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Relevance theory. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (2nd ed.) (pp. 642–662). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2.5]Google Scholar
Zappavigna, M.
(2012) Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the web. London: Bloomsbury. [4.6.3]Google Scholar
Zethsen, K. K., & Askehave, I.
(2006) Medical communication: Professional-lay. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics (2nd ed.) (pp. 644–664). Oxford: Elsevier. [14.7]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zimman, L.
(2009) ‘The other kind of coming out’: Transgender people and the coming out narrative genre. Gender and Language, 3(1), 53–80. [15.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A.
(1998) Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162–185. [13.4]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 11 other publications

Anderson, Babs
2020. The securitisation of values: early years leaders experiences of the implementation of the prevent strategy. Ethics and Education 15:4  pp. 426 ff. Crossref logo
Arafat, Tharwat & Bilal Hamamra
2021. Gender and word elongation in Facebook-mediated communication in Palestinian Arabic. Communication Research and Practice  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Das, Debopam & Maite Taboada
2019. Multiple Signals of Coherence Relations. Discours :24 Crossref logo
Montesi, Michela
2021. Understanding fake news during the Covid-19 health crisis from the perspective of information behaviour: The case of Spain. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 53:3  pp. 454 ff. Crossref logo
Purnomo, Mangku, Ahmad Maryudi, Novil Dedy Andriatmoko, Edy Muhamad Jayadi & Heiko Faust
2021. The cost of leisure: the political ecology of the commercialization of Indonesia’s protected areas. Environmental Sociology  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Rafiee, Afrooz, Wilbert Spooren & José Sanders
2021. Framing similar issues differently: a cross-cultural discourse analysis of news images. Social Semiotics  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Schmied, Josef
2020. LIMITS OF DISCOURSE: EXAMPLES FROM POLITICAL, ACADEMIC, AND HUMAN-AGENT INTERACTION. Discourse and Interaction 13:2  pp. 89 ff. Crossref logo
Schubert, Christoph
2019. ‘OK, well, first of all, let me say …’: Discursive uses of response initiators in US presidential primary debates. Discourse Studies 21:4  pp. 438 ff. Crossref logo
Schubert, Christoph
2021. Rhetorical moves in political discourse: closing statements by presidential candidates in US primary election debates. Text & Talk 41:3  pp. 369 ff. Crossref logo
Sladoljev-Agejev, Tamara & Svjetlana Kolić-Vehovec
2021. Effects of searching for rhetorical relations on university-level text comprehension in L2. Reading and Writing Crossref logo
Statham, Simon & Rocío Montoro
2019. The year’s work in stylistics 2018. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 28:4  pp. 354 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 november 2021. 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.

Subjects & Metadata

Communication Studies

Communication Studies
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009030 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Pragmatics
ONIX Metadata
ONIX 2.1
ONIX 3.0
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2018037181 | Marc record