In:Introduction to Discourse Studies: New edition
Jan Renkema and Christoph Schubert
[Not in series 219] 2018
► pp. 421–448
References
Published online: 30 November 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.219.refs
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.219.refs
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]
Agee, W., Ault, P., & Emery, E. (1997). Introduction to mass communications (12th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. [14.6]
Ainsworth-Vaughn, N. (1998). Claiming power in doctor-patient talk. New York: Oxford University Press. [14.7]
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 179–211. [12.4]
Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the models of writing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [13.5]
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]
Arendholz, J. (2013). (In)Appropriate online behavior: A pragmatic analysis of message board relations. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [2.6]
Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanity Press. [14.4]
Auer, P., & Luzio, A. di (Eds.). (1992). The contextualization of language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [3.5]
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]
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]
Baesler, J., & Burgoon, J. (1994). The temporal effects of story and statistical evidence on belief change. Communication Research, 21, 582–602. [12.5]
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist, Ed., C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. [4.3]
(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]
Bal, M. (2017). Narratology: Introduction to the theory of narrative (4th ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. [7.5]
Balota, D. A., Flores d’Arcais, G. B., & Rayner, K. (Eds.). (1990). Comprehension processes in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.2]
Bamberg, M. (Ed.). (1997). Oral versions of personal experience: Three decades of narrative analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [11.3]
Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2003). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [8.6]
Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Harris, S. (1997). Managing language: The discourse of corporate meetings. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [14.2]
Barron, A. (2012). Public information messages: A contrastive genre analysis of state-citizen communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [14.5]
Bartlett, T., & O’Grady, G. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics. Oxford: Routledge. [3.6]
Bateman, J. (2008). Multimodality and genre: A foundation for the systematic analysis of multimodal documents. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [4.5]
(2014). Text and image: A critical introduction to the visual/verbal divide. London: Routledge. [4.5]
(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]
Bateman, J., & Schmidt, K.-H. (2012). Multimodal film analysis: How films mean. New York: Routledge. [4.5]
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]
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]
Beaugrande, R. A. de, & Dressler, W. U. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman. [1, 3.5, 3.7, 6.2, 6.3]
(2017). The discourse of news values: How news organisations create newsworthiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [14.6]
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.5, 13.6]
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]
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman. [4.4, 14.4]
(2017). Critical genre analysis: Investigating interdiscursive performance in professional practice. London: Routledge. [4.4]
(2006). University language: A corpus-based study on spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [10.2]
Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. A. (2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [5.6]
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]
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [10.2]
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman. [4.3]
Birner, B., & Ward, G. (Eds.). (1998). Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [7.4]
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [1]
Bolinger, D. (1982). Language, the loaded weapon: The use and abuse of language today. London: Longman. [14.3]
Bosch, P. (1983). Agreement and anaphora: A study in the role of pronouns in syntax and discourse. London: Academic Press. [6.2.2]
Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [2.6]
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]
Bowe, H., Martin, K., & Manns, H. (2014). Communication across cultures: Mutual understanding in a global world (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [15.6]
Bransford, J., Barclay, J., & Franks, J. (1972). Sentence memory: A constructive versus interpretative approach. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 193–209. [13.3]
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]
Briggs, C. (Ed.). (1996). Disorderly discourse, narrative conflict and inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [11.5]
Brinton, L. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [9.5]
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]
Britton, B. K., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (1996). Models of understanding text. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.3]
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]
Brône, G., & Vandaele, J. (Eds.). (2009). Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [8.6]
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [1, 3.5, 3.7, 5.3, 6.3, 7.4]
Brown, P. (2017). Politeness and impoliteness. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics (pp. 383–399). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2.6]
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978/1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2.6]
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]
Bublitz, W., Jucker, A. H., & Schneider, K. P. (Eds.). (2010–). Handbooks of pragmatics (HOPS). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [3.2]
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]
Bucholtz, M., Liang, A., & Sutton, L. (Eds.). (1999). Reinventing identities: The gendered self in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [15.4]
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]
Bultinck, B. (2005). Numerous meanings: The meanings of English cardinals and the legacy of Paul Grice. Amsterdam: Elsevier. [2.4]
Burgoon, M. (1989). Messages and persuasive effects. In J. J. Bradac (Ed.), Message effects in communication science (pp. 129–164). London: Sage. [12.4]
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]
Candlin, C. N., & Sarangi, S. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of communication in organisations and professions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [14.7]
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]
Canning, P., & Whiteley, S. (Eds.). (2017). Stylistic approaches to reader response research: Special issue. Language and Literature, 26(2). [8.6]
Cap, P., & Dynel, M. (Eds.). (2017). Implicitness: From lexis to discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [7.6]
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell. [2.5]
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]
(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]
(1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [13.5]
Chapman, S., & Clark, B. (Eds.). (2014). Pragmatic literary stylistics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. [8.6]
Cherny, L. (1999). Conversation and community: Chat in a virtual world. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [4.6]
Chilton, P., & Schäffner, C. (Eds.). (2002). Politics as text and talk: Analytical approaches to political discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [14.3]
(2011). Discourse and politics. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 303–330). London: Sage. [14.3]
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]
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]
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]
Coates, J. & Pichler, P. (Ed.). (2011). Language and gender: A reader (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. [15.4]
Costermans, J., & Fayol, M. (2014). Processing interclausal relationships: Studies in the production and comprehension of text. London: Psychology Press. [6.5]
Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (2017). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. London: Routledge. [14.4]
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Kortmann, B. (Eds.). (2000). Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [6.3]
Culpeper, J. (2001). Language and characterisation: People in plays and other texts. London: Longman. [8.6.3]
Cutting, J. (2008). Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. [2.5]
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [8.6]
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]
Das, D., & Taboada, M. (2017). Signalling of coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse Processes, 1–29. [6.4]
Davis, B., & Brewer, J. (1997). Electronic discourse: Linguistic individuals in virtual space. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. [4.6]
Davison, A., & Green, A. M. (Eds.). (1988). Linguistic complexity and text comprehension: Readability issues reconsidered. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [10.3]
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]
De Fina, A., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2011). Analyzing narrative: Discourse and sociolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [11.3]
Delin, J., & Bateman, J. (2002). Describing and critiquing multimodal documents. Document Design, 3, 141–155. [4.5]
Dennis, E., & Merrill, J. (2002). Media debates: Issues in mass communication (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. [14.6]
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]
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]
Dijk, T. A. van (1977). Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman. [3.5]
(1980). Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [5.4, 5.5]
(1984). Prejudice in discourse: An analysis of ethnic prejudice in cognition and conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [15.5]
(1988). News analysis: Case studies of international and national news in the press. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [14.6]
(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]
(2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [7.2]
(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]
(2014b). Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [15.5]
(2018). Socio-cognitive discourse studies. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 26–43). New York: Routledge. [15.3]
Dillon, G. L. (1981). Constructing texts: Elements of a theory of composition and style. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [10.5]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [14.2]
Duchan, J. F., Bruder, G. A., & Hewitt, L. E. (Eds.). (1995). Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [7.3]
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]
Duranti, A. (Ed.). (2009). Linguistic anthropology: A reader (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. [15.2]
Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [3.5]
Dušková, L. (2015). From syntax to text: The Janus face of functional sentence perspective. Prague: Karolinum Press. [5.3]
Duszak, A. (Ed.). (1997). Culture and styles of academic discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [14.2]
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2013). Language and gender (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [15.4]
Eco, U. (1966). The narrative structure in Fleming. In U. Eco & O. Del Buono (Eds.), The Bond affair. London: McDonald. [11.2]
(Ed.). (2017). Prototypical argumentative patterns: Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [12.3]
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]
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1994). Studies in pragma-dialectics. Amsterdam: Sic Sat. [12.3]
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]
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]
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [12.3]
Ehlich, K. (Ed.). (1980). Erzählen im Alltag [Narrating in everyday life]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. [11.3]
Ehlich, K., & Wagner, J. (Eds.). (1995). The discourse of business communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [12.5]
Ehrlich, S. (1980). Comprehension of pronouns. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 247–255. [6.2.2]
Ehrlich, S., Meyerhoff, M., & Holmes, J. (Eds.). (2014). The handbook of language, gender, and sexuality (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell. [15.4]
Eisenlauer, V. (2013). A critical hypertext analysis of social media: The true colours of Facebook. London: Continuum. [4.6.2, 4.6.3]
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]
Epstein, J. (1995). Altered conditions: Disease, medicine, and storytelling. New York: Routledge. [14.7]
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]
Everett, C. (2013). Linguistic relativity: Evidence across languages and cognitive domains. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [15.2]
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]
Fairclough, N. (1995/2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. [15.3]
Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge. [14.3]
Fang, Y.-J. (2001). Reporting the same events? A critical analysis of Chinese print news media texts. Discourse & Society, 12, 585–613. [14.6]
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [13.2]
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]
(2017). Context. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics (pp. 259–276). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [7.2]
Fetzer, A., & Meierkord, C. (Eds.). (2002). Rethinking sequentiality: Linguistics meets conversational interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [9.5]
Fetzer, A., & Oishi, E. (Eds.). (2011). Context and contexts. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [7.2]
Fillenbaum, S. (1974). Pragmatic normalization: Further results for some conjunctive and disjunctive sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 87, 93–98. [13.3]
Finkbeiner, R., Meibauer, J., & Schumacher, P. (Eds.). (2012). What is a context? Linguistic approaches and challenges. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [7.2]
Firbas, J. (1992). Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [5.3]
Flowerdew, J., Li, D., & Tran, S. (2002). Discriminatory news discourse: Some Hong Kong data. Discourse & Society, 13, 319–345. [15.5]
Flowerdew, J., & Mahlberg, M. (Eds.). (2009). Lexical cohesion and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [6.2]
Flowerdew, J., & Richardson, J. E. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies. London: Routledge. [1, 15.3]
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]
(1993). Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [6.3]
Fowler, H. N. (1977). Plato in twelve volumes: Vol. 4. Cratilus, Parmenides, Greater Hippias, Lesser Hippias. London: Heinemann. [2.2]
Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London: Routledge. [7.5]
Fowler, R., Hodge, R., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language and control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. [15.3]
Fox, B. A. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora: Written and conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [6.2]
Frank, A. W. (2013). The wounded storyteller: Body, illness, and ethics (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [14.7]
Freeman, M. H. (2014). Cognitive poetics. In M. Burke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics (pp. 313–328). Oxford: Routledge. [8.6.3]
Frehner, C. (2008). E-Mail – SMS – MMS: The linguistic creativity of asynchronous discourse in the New Media Age. Bern: Peter Lang. [4.6.3]
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]
Gardiner, A. (1969). The theory of speech and language (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2.2]
Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. (4th ed.). London: Routledge. [1]
Gee, J. P., & Handford, M. (Eds.). (2014). The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Routledge. [1]
Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.). (2007). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [13.2]
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]
(2007). Small stories, interaction and identities. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [11.3]
(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]
Georgakopoulou, A., & Goutsos, D. (2004). Discourse analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [1]
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.3]
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Givón, T. (Eds.). (1995). Coherence in spontaneous text. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [13.3]
(2003). Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Malden, MA: Blackwell. [14.4]
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]
(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]
Giltrow, J., & Stein, D. (Eds.). (2009). Genres in the internet. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [4.6.3]
Givón, T. (1989). Mind, code and context: Essays in pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [5.3]
(2005). Context as other minds. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [7.2]
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]
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]
Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press. [2.6]
(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]
Graesser, A. C., & Bower, G. H. (Eds.). (1990). Inferences and text comprehension. New York: Academic Press. [7.6]
Graesser, A. C., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Goldman, S. R. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.3]
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]
Graumann, C. F., & Kallmeyer, W. (Eds.). (2002). Perspective and perspectivation in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [7.5]
Green, G. M. (1996). Pragmatics and natural language understanding (2nd ed.). New York: Erlbaum. [3.2]
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]
Grosz, B., & Sidner, C. (1986). Attention, intention and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12, 175–204. [6.5]
Gruber, H., & Redeker, G. (2014). (Eds.). The pragmatics of discourse coherence: Theories and applications. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [6.3]
Gumperz, J., & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.). (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [15.2]
Gunnarsson, B. L. (1984). Functional comprehensibility of legislative texts: Experiments with a Swedish act of parliament. Text, 4, 71–105. [10.6]
(1989). Text comprehensibility and the writing process: The case of law and lawmaking. Written Communication, 6, 86–107. [14.4]
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]
Haiman, J., & Thompson, S. (Eds.). (1988). Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [6.3]
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold. [3.6, 8.2]
(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]
(1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Victoria: Deakin University. [3.6]
Halliday, M. A. K., & Webster, J. J. (2014). Text linguistics: The how and why of meaning. Sheffield: Equinox. [3.6, 6.2]
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]
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]
Harley, T. A. (2014). The psychology of language: From data to theory (4th ed.). London: Psychology Press. [13.2]
Hart, C., & Cap, P. (Eds.). (2014). Contemporary critical discourse studies. London: Bloomsbury. [15.3]
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]
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]
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106–1113. [13.5, 13.6]
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]
Hellinger, M., & Bußmann, H. (Eds.). (2003). Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men (3 vols.). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [15.4]
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Chichester: Blackwell. [9.3]
Herring, S. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [4.6]
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]
Herring, S., Stein, D., & Virtanen, T. (Eds.). (2013). Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [4.6]
Heyd, T. (2008). Email hoaxes: Form, function, genre ecology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [4.6]
Hicks, D. (Ed.). (1996). Discourse, learning, and schooling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [14.2]
Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. New York: NCRE. [13.5]
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]
Hoffmann, C. R. (Ed.). (2010). Narrative revisited: Telling a story in the age of new media. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [11.3]
(2012). Cohesive profiling: Meaning and interaction in personal weblogs. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [4.6.3, 6.2.1]
Hoffmann, C. R., & Bublitz, W. (Eds.). (2017). Pragmatics of social media. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [4.6]
Hoffmann, L. (1983). Kommunikation vor Gericht [Communication before the court]. Tübingen: Narr. [14.4]
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). London: Sage. [15.6]
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. [15.6]
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]
Hovy, E., & Scott, D. (Eds.). (1996). Computational and conversational discourse: Burning issues: An interdisciplinary account. Berlin: Springer. [6.5]
Huang, Y. (2014). Pragmatics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2.4, 3.2, 7.2, 7.3, 7.6.1]
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]
Hunt, K. W. (1970). Syntactic maturity in schoolchildren and adults. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 35, 1–67. [13.6]
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press. [9.2, 9.4]
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]
Jackson, J. (Ed.). (2012). The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication. London: Routledge. [15.6]
Jakobs, E.-M., & Perrin, D. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of writing and text production. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [13.5]
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]
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]
Janssen, D., & Neutelings, R. (Eds.). (2001). Reading and writing public documents. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [14.5]
Jarvella, R. (1971). Syntactic processing of connected speech. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 409–416. [13.3]
Jaworski, A. (Ed.). (1997). Silence: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [9.3]
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]
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [3.7, 13.2]
Johnstone, B. (2016). ‘Oral versions of personal experience’: Labovian narrative analysis and its uptake. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(4), 542–560. [11.3]
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]
Jones, S. (Ed.). (1995). Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [4.6]
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]
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]
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]
Jucker, A., & Taavitsainen, I. (2013). English historical pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [7.3]
Jucker, A., & Ziv, Y. (Eds.) (1998). Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [9.5]
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]
Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2.6]
Kallmeyer, W., et al. (1980). Lektürekolleg zur Textlinguistik. Bd. 1. Einführung [Lecture on text linguistics: Vol. 1. Introduction]. Königstein: Athenäum. [6.2]
Katz Bourns, S., & Myers, L. (Eds.). (2014). Perspectives on linguistic structure and context. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [7.4]
Kennedy, G. A. (1994). A new history of classical rhetoric. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [8.2]
Kent, T. (Ed.). (1999). Post-process theory: Beyond the writing-process paradigm. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. [13.6]
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. [13.4]
Kintsch, W., & Dijk, T. A. van (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological review, 85, 363–394. [13.3, 13.4]
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]
Kirsch, G., & Roen, D. H. (1990). A sense of audience in written communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [13.5]
Klein-Braley, C. (1982). On the suitability of cloze tests as measures of reading comprehension. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 13, 49–61. [10.4]
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]
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]
Kotthoff, H., & Spencer-Oatey, H. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of intercultural communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [15.6]
Kress, G. (1989). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [3.6, 6.2]
(2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge. [4.5]
Kress, G., & Leeuwen, T. van (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold. [4.5]
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]
Kuno, S. (1987). Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [7.5]
Kuppevelt, J. van (1995). Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. Journal of Linguistics, 31, 109–147. [4.3]
Kurzon, D. (1998). Discourse of silence. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [9.3]
Kyratzis, A. (1999). Narrative identity: Preschoolers’ self-construction through narrative in friendship group dramatic play. Narrative Inquiry, 9, 427–455. [11.5]
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. [11.3]
(2013). The language of life and death: The transformation of experience in oral narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [11.3]
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]
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [15.2]
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [8.6.3]
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]
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]
Langacker, R. W. (2002). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar (2nd ed.). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [13.2]
Lanham, R. A. (1991). A handlist of rhetorical terms (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. [8.2]
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]
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]
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]
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]
(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]
Lentz, L., & Pander Maat, H. (Eds.). (1997). Discourse analysis and evaluation: Functional approaches. Amsterdam: Rodopi. [10.5]
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]
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2.6, 3.2, 7.3, 7.6, 9.3, 9.4]
(2004). Deixis. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 97–121). Oxford: Blackwell. [7.3]
(2017). Speech acts. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics (pp. 199–216). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2.3]
Levy, M., & Randell, S. (Eds.). (1996). The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.6]
Liddicoat, A. J. (2011). An introduction to conversation analysis. London: Continuum. [9.2, 9.4, 11.3]
Liebert, W.-A., Redeker, G., & Waugh, L. (Eds.). (1997). Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [13.3]
Limberg, H. (2010). The interactional organization of academic talk: Office hour consultations. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [10.2]
(2008). Working the past: Narrative and institutional memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [11.5]
Litosseliti, L., & Sunderland, J. (Eds.). (2002). Gender identity and discourse analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [15.4]
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]
Louwerse, M., & Peer, W. van der (Eds.). (2002). Thematics: Interdisciplinary studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [5.3]
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]
Luhmann, N. (1970 and 1975). Soziologische Aufklärung (Bd. 1 & 2) [Sociological enlightenment (Vols. 1 & 2)]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. [14.2]
(2014). Corpus stylistics. In M. Burke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics (pp. 378–392). Oxford: Routledge. [8.6.1]
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]
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]
Mandler, J. M., & Johnson, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111–151. [11.4]
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organisation. Text, 8, 243–281. [6.4]
(Eds.). (1992). Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [1]
(2001). Deux perspectives sur la théorie de la structure Rhétorique [Two views of Rhetorical Structure Theory]. Verbum, 23, 9–30. [6.4]
Markee, N. (Ed.). (2015). The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction. Malden, MA: Blackwell. [14.2]
Marmaridou, S. (2000). Pragmatic meaning and cognition. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [7.3]
Martin, J. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [3.6]
(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]
Martin, J., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.). London: Bloomsbury Academic. [3.6]
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]
Mayr, A. (2008). Language and power: An introduction to institutional discourse. London: Continuum. [14.1]
(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]
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [1]
McCroskey, J. C. (2006). An introduction to rhetorical communication: A Western rhetorical perspective (9th ed.). London: Routledge. [12.2]
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]
McIntyre, D., & Busse, B. (Eds.). (2010). Language and style. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [8.3]
McMenamin, G. (2002). Forensic linguistics: Advances in forensic stylistics. Boca Raton: CRC. [8.4, 14.4]
McNamara, D. S. (Ed.). (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [13.2]
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 297–384. [13.4]
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]
(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]
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]
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]
Moore, J., & Pollack, M. (1992). A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis. Computational Linguistics, 18, 537–544. [6.5]
Morris, P. (Ed.). (1994). The Bakhtin reader: Selected writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev and Voloshinov. London: Arnold. [2.5, 4.3]
Moser, M., & Moore, J. (1996). Toward a synthesis of two accounts of discourse structure. Computational Linguistics, 22, 409–419. [6.5]
Motschenbacher, H. (2010). Language, gender and sexual identity: Poststructuralist perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [15.4]
Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [9.5]
Myers, J. L., & O’Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131–157. [13.4]
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]
Ng, S. H., & Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [15.3]
Nielsen, J. (1999). Designing web usability: The practice of simplicity. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Press. [4.6]
Niemeier, S., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (2000). Evidence for linguistic relativity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [15.2]
Noordman, L., & Vonk, W. (1992). Reader’s knowledge and the control of inferences in reading. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7, 373–391. [7.6]
(1999). Discourse comprehension. In A. Friederici (Ed.), Language comprehension: A biological perspective (pp. 229–263). Berlin: Springer. [13.3]
Nørgaard, N., Busse, B. & Montoro, R. (2010). Key terms in stylistics. London: Continuum. [8.3, 8.6]
Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. [4.3]
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [9.4]
Ordóñez-López, P., & Edo-Marzá, N. (Eds.). (2016). Medical discourse in professional, academic and popular settings. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. [14.7]
Orr, J. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. London: Cornell University Press. [11.5]
Ortony, A. (Ed.). (1993). Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [8.6]
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]
Otero, J., León, J. A., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (2002). The psychology of science text comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.3]
Padilla Cruz, M. (Ed.). (2016). Relevance theory: Recent developments, current challenges and future directions. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [2.5]
Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of English for specific purposes. Chichester: Blackwell. [10.2]
Partington, A., Duguid, A., & Taylor, C. (2013). Patterns and meanings in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [5.6]
Peirce, C. S. (1992). The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings. 2 vols. Ed. N. Houser & C. Kloesel. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [3.2]
Pemberton, L., & Shurville, S. (Eds.). (2000). Words on the web: Computer-mediated communication. Exeter: Intellect. [4.6]
Pericles Trifonas, P. (Ed.). (2015). International handbook of semiotics. Dordrecht: Springer. [3.2]
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer. [12.4]
Philips, S. (1998). Ideology in the language of judges: How judges practice law, politics and courtroom control. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [14.4]
Piller, I. (2011). Intercultural communication: A critical introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [15.6]
Platt, F. W. (Ed.). (1995). Conversation repair: Case studies in doctor-patient communication. Boston: Little, Brown. [14.7]
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]
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]
Price, J., & Price, L. (2002). Hot text: Web writing that works. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Press. [4.6]
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]
(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]
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]
(1984). Theory and history of folklore (A. Liberman, Ed., A. Martin & P. Martin, Trans.). Manchester: Manchester University Press. (Original work published 1946) [11.2]
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]
Rambow, O. (Ed.). (1993). Intentionality and structure in discourse relations: Proceedings of the ACL SIGGEN Workshop. Columbus: Ohio State University. [6.5]
Reid, T. B. W. (1956). Linguistics, structuralism and philology. Archivum Linguisticum, 8, 28–37. [8.2]
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]
(2018). The discourse-historical approach. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 44–59). New York: Routledge. [15.5]
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. [15.5]
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]
(2009a). The texture of discourse: Towards an outline of connectivity theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [6.6]
(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]
(Ed.). (2009c). Discourse, of course: An overview of research in discourse studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [1]
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]
Richardson, J. E. (2007). Analysing newspapers: An approach from critical discourse analysis. London: Palgrave Macmillan. [14.6]
Roberts, C., Davies, E., & Jupp, T. (1992). Language and discrimination: A study of communication in multi-ethnic workplaces. London: Longman. [15.5]
Roque, G. (Ed.). (2012). Special issue: Persuasion and argumentation. Argumentation: An International Journal on Reasoning, 26(1). [12.1]
Rouet, J.-F., Levonen, J., & Dillon, A. (Eds.). (1996). Hypertext and cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [4.6]
Roulet, E. (1984). Speech acts, discourse structure, and pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 31–47. [4.3]
Sacks, H., Jefferson, G., & Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Lectures on conversation (2 vols.). Oxford: Blackwell. [9.2, 11.3]
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]
Sanders, T., Schilperoord, J., & Spooren, W. (Eds.). (2001). Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [6.5]
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]
Sanders, T., Spooren, W., & Noordman, L. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15, 1–36. [6.5]
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]
Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language: Explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence. Chichester: Wiley. [6.2, 7.6, 13.3]
Sapir, E. (1949). Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture, and personality. Berkeley: University of California Press. [15.2]
Sarangi, S., & Slembrouck, S. (1996). Language, bureaucracy & social control. London: Longman. [14.5]
Sbisà, M., & Turner, K. (Eds.). (2013). Pragmatics of speech actions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [2.3]
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.3]
Schank, R. C., & Lebowitz, M. (1980). Levels of understanding in computers and people. Poetics, 9, 251–273. [13.2]
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]
(2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Vol. 1: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [9.2, 9.5]
(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]
(1997). Stories in answer to questions in research interviews. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, 129–137. [11.5]
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]
Schmolz, H. (2015). Anaphora resolution and text retrieval: A linguistic analysis of hypertexts. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [4.6.2, 6.2]
Schneider, K. P., & Barron, A. (Eds.). (2008). Variational pragmatics: A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [15.6]
(2017). Plain language in the US gains momentum: 1940–2015. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(4), 343–383. [14.4]
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]
(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]
(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]
(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]
Schubert, C., & Sanchez-Stockhammer, C. (Eds.). (2016). Variational text linguistics: Revisiting register in English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [8.2]
Schubert, C., & Volkmann, L. (Eds.). (2016). Pragmatic perspectives on postcolonial discourse: Linguistics and literature. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars [8.6.2]
Scollon, R., Scollon, S., & Jones, R. (2001/2012). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. [15.6]
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2.3.1, 2.3.2]
(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]
Searle, J. R., et al. (1992). (On) Searle on conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [9.3]
Semino, E., & Culpeper, J. (Eds.). (2002). Cognitive stylistics: Language and cognition in text analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [8.6]
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. [3.4]
Shmelev, A. (2001). Manipulation in Russian political journalism. Studies in Communication Sciences, 1, 101–116. [14.3]
(2014). Analysing dialogue. In P. Stockwell & S. Whiteley (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of stylistics (pp. 344–359). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [8.6.2]
Shuy, R. W. (1993). Language crimes: The use and abuse of language evidence in the courtroom. Oxford: Blackwell. [14.4]
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. [9.2, 9.4, 9.5]
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. [9.2]
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]
Singer, M. (1990). Psychology of language: An introduction to sentence and discourse processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.2]
Smith, N., & Wilson, D. (1979). Modern linguistics: The results of Chomsky’s revolution. Brighton: Harvester Press. [2.5]
Smith, R. C. (1996). The patient’s story: Integrated patient-doctor interviewing. Boston: Little, Brown. [14.7]
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. [2.5]
Statham, S. (2016). Redefining trial by media: Towards a critical-forensic linguistic interface. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [14.6]
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]
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]
Stockwell, P., & Whiteley, S. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of stylistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [8.6]
Strauss, S., & Feiz, P. (2014). Discourse analysis: Putting our worlds into words. New York: Routledge. [1]
Stubbs, M. W. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford: Blackwell. [1, 3.7]
(1996). Text and corpus analysis: Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford: Blackwell. [14.2]
(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]
Stukker, N., Spooren, W., & Steen, G. (Eds.). (2016). Genre in language, discourse and cognition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [6.5]
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]
Svartvik, J., & Quirk, R. (Eds.). (1980). A corpus of English conversation. Lund: CWK Gleerup. [9.2, 9.3]
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [4.4]
Taboada, M. (2004). Building coherence and cohesion: Task-oriented dialogue in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [6.3]
Taboada, M., & Mann, W. C. (2006a). Rhetorical structure theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies, 8, 423–459. [6.4]
Tagg, C. (2012). The discourse of text messaging: Analysis of SMS communication. London: Continuum. [4.6]
Tannen, D. (1988). Linguistics in context: Connecting observation and understanding. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. [3.7]
Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. E., & Schiffrin, D. (Eds.). (2015). The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. [1]
Tanskanen, S.-K. (2006). Collaborating towards coherence: Lexical cohesion in English discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [6.2.1, 6.3]
Taylor, J. R. (1993). Rethinking the theory of organizational communication: How to read an organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. [14.2]
Thurlow, C., & Mroczek, K. (Eds.). (2011). Digital discourse: Language in the new media. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [4.6]
Tiersma, P. M. & Solan, L. M. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of language and law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [14.4]
Toolan, M. (2001). Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. [11.3]
(Ed.). (2002). Critical discourse analysis: Critical concepts in linguistics (4 vols.). London: Routledge. [15.3]
(2016). Making sense of narrative text: Situation, repetition, and picturing in the reading of short stories. New York: Routledge. [11.4]
Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D. (Eds.). (1999). Knowing what to write: Cognitive perspectives on conceptual processes in text production. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. [13.6]
Toulmin, S. E. (1958/2003). The uses of argument (updated ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [12.2]
Tseng, C.-I. (2013). Cohesion in film: Tracking film elements. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. [6.2]
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H.-J. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education. [13.2]
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]
Vanderveken, D., & Kubo, S. (Eds.). (2001). Essays in speech act theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [2.3]
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]
Ventola, E., Charles, C., & Kaltenbacher, M. (Eds.). (2004). Perspectives on multimodality. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [4.5]
Verschueren, J., Östman, J. O., & Blommaert, J. (Eds.). (1995). Handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [3.2]
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]
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]
Vorderer, P., Wulff, H., & Friedrichsen, M. (Eds.). (1996). Suspense: Conceptualizations, theoretical analyses, and empirical explorations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [11.4]
Waes, L. van, Woudstra, E., & Hoven, P. van den (Eds.). (1994). Functional communication quality. Amsterdam: Rodopi. [10.5]
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]
Walton, D. N. (1987). Informal fallacies: Towards a theory of argument criticisms. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [12.3]
Watson Todd, R. (2016). Discourse topics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [5.6]
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]
Weaver, C. A., Mannes, S., & Fletcher, C. R. (Eds.). (1995). Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [13.3]
Weber, J. J. (Ed.). (1996). The stylistics reader: From Roman Jakobson to the present. London: Arnold. [8.6]
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]
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]
Widdowson, H. (1998). The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 19, 136–151. [15.3]
Wierzbicka, A. (1986). Does language reflect culture? Evidence from Australian English. Language in Society, 15, 349–374. [15.2]
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]
Wildfeuer, J. (2014). Film discourse interpretation: Towards a new paradigm for multimodal film analysis. London: Routledge. [4.5]
Wilson, D. (2017). Relevance theory. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics (pp. 79–100). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2.5]
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Relevance and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2.5]
Winter, E. (1976). Fundamentals of information structure: Pilot manual for further development according to student need (Mimeograph). Hatfield: Hatfield Polytechnic. [5.3]
Witte, S. P. (1987). Pre-text and composing. College Composition and Communication, 38, 397–425. [13.6]
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2016). Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). London: Sage. [15.3]
Wodak, R., & Richardson, J. E. (Eds.). (2013). Analyzing fascist discourse: European fascism in talk and text. New York: Routledge. [15.5]
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]
Yus, F. (2011). Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated communication in context. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [4.6.3]
(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]
Zappavigna, M. (2012). Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the web. London: Bloomsbury. [4.6.3]
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]