Contesting spaces

References

1. Ali, Marwah K., Anne Althea Christopher, and Munif Z. F. B. Nordin
   2017 “Pronouns and Ideology in Newspaper Discourse.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature(): –. 10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.3p.168
   https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.3p.168 [Google Scholar]
2. Baker, Paul, Costas Gabrielatos, Majid Khosravinik, Michał Krzyżanowski, Tony McEnery, and Ruth Wodak
   2008 “A Useful Methodological Synergy? Combining Critical Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics to Examine Discourses of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the UK Press.” Discourse and Society(): –. 10.1177/0957926508088962
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508088962 [Google Scholar]
3. Bilaniuk, Laada
   2017 “Purism and Pluralism: Language Use Trends in Popular Culture in Ukraine since Independence.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies(): –.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Biri, Ylva
   2023 “Affective Stance as Positioning in an English-speaking Online Fan Community.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2023.07.004
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.07.004 [Google Scholar]
5. Bogetić, Ksenija
   2013 “Normal Straight Gays: Lexical Collocations and Ideologies of Masculinity in Personal Ads of Serbian Gay Teenagers.” Gender and Language(): –. 10.1558/genl.v7i3.333
   https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.v7i3.333 [Google Scholar]
6. Burnette, Jessie, and Andreea S. Calude
   2022 “Wake Up New Zealand! Directives, Politeness and Stance in Twitter #Covid19NZ Posts.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.05.002
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.05.002 [Google Scholar]
7. Cap, Piotr
   2008 “Towards the Proximization Model of the Analysis of Legitimization in Political Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics(): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.002
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.002 [Google Scholar]
8. Caprolu, Maurantonio, Alireza Sadighian, and Roberto Di Pietro
   2023 “Characterizing the 2022-Russo-Ukrainian Conflict through the Lenses of Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis: Dataset, Methodology, and Key Findings.” 32nd International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN): –. 10.1109/ICCCN58024.2023.10230192
   https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCN58024.2023.10230192 [Google Scholar]
9. Chen, Emily, and Emilio Ferrara
   2023 “Posts in Time of Conflict: A Public Dataset Tracking the Twitter Discourse on the War between Ukraine and Russia.” InProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media: –. 10.1609/icwsm.v17i1.22208
   https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v17i1.22208 [Google Scholar]
10. Chilton, Paul
    2004 Analyzing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203561218
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218 [Google Scholar]
11. Chiluwa, Innocent, and Presley Ifukor
    2015 “‘War against our Children’: Stance and Evaluation in #BringBackOurGirls Campaign Discourse on Twitter and Facebook.” Discourse and Society(): –. 10.1177/0957926514564735
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926514564735 [Google Scholar]
12. Chovanec, Jan
    2019 “Euphemisms and Non-Proximal Manipulation of Discourse Space: The Case of Blue-on-Blue.” Lingua: –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2019.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.04.001 [Google Scholar]
13. CITR Executive Board, Coalition for Independent Technology Research
    CITR Executive Board, Coalition for Independent Technology Research 2023 Letter: X’s New API Plans Will Devastate Public Interest Researchhttps://independenttechresearch.org/letter-Xs-new-api-plans-will-devastate-public-interest-research/
    [Google Scholar]
14. Davies, Bronwyn, and Rom Harré
    1990 “Positioning: The Social Construction of Selves.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour(): –. 10.1111/j.1468‑5914.1990.tb00174.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.x [Google Scholar]
15. Devlin, Anne Marie
    2017 “Lard-eaters, Gay-ropeans, Sheeple and Prepositions: Lexical and Syntactic Devices Employed to Position the Other in Russian Online Political Forums.” Russian Journal of Communication(): –. 10.1080/19409419.2016.1219642
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19409419.2016.1219642 [Google Scholar]
16. Du Bois, John W.
    2007 “The Stance Triangle.” InStancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, edited byRobert Englebretson, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
17. Enrique-Arias, Andres, and Marina Gomila Albal
    2023 “Testing Twitter Data on a Morphosyntactic Variable: The Expression of the Future in American and Peninsular Spanish.” InCorpus Dialectology, edited byElissa Pustka, Carmen Quijada Van den Berghe, and Verena Weiland, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.110.08enr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.110.08enr [Google Scholar]
18. Gabrielatos, Costas, and Paul Baker
    2008 “Fleeing, Sneaking, Flooding: A Corpus Analysis of Discursive Constructions of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the UK Press, 1996–2005.” Journal of English Linguistics(): –. 10.1177/0075424207311247
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424207311247 [Google Scholar]
19. Garcia, Manuel B., and Armi Cunanan-Yabut
    2022 “Public Sentiment and Emotion Analyses of Twitter Data on the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine.” 9th International Conference on Information Technology, Computer, and Electrical Engineering (ICITACEE): –. 10.1109/ICITACEE55701.2022.9924136
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITACEE55701.2022.9924136 [Google Scholar]
20. Geissler, Dominique, Dominik Bär, Nicolas Pröllochs, and Stefan Feuerriegel
    2023 “Russian Propaganda on Social Media during the 2022 Invasion of Ukraine.” EPJ Data Science(). 10.1140/epjds/s13688‑023‑00414‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-023-00414-5 [Google Scholar]
21. Graber, Kathryn E.
    2022 “It’s ‘Ukraine’, not ‘the Ukraine’ — here is why.” The Conversation, March9.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Grčar, Miha, Darko Cherepnalkoski, Igor Mozetič, and Petra Kralj Novak
    2017 “Stance and Influence of Twitter Users Regarding the Brexit Referendum.” Computational Social Networks:. 10.1186/s40649‑017‑0042‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s40649-017-0042-6 [Google Scholar]
23. Hunston, Susan
    2022 Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108616218
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108616218 [Google Scholar]
24. Janda, Laura A., Masako Fidler, Václav Cvrček, and Anna Obukhova
    2023 “The Case for Case in Putin’s Speeches.” Russian Linguistics(): –. 10.1007/s11185‑022‑09269‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-022-09269-2 [Google Scholar]
25. Jing, Fu
    2020 “Armed Conflicts as a Source of New Formations in the Russian Language (on Material of the Armed Conflict in Donbass).” The Journal of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Series “Philology”: –. 10.26565/2227‑1864‑2020‑87‑09
    https://doi.org/10.26565/2227-1864-2020-87-09 [Google Scholar]
26. Kaltenböck, Gunther, María José López-Couso, and Belén Méndez-Naya
    2020 “The Dynamics of Stance Constructions.” Language Sciences: 101330. 10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101330
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101330 [Google Scholar]
27. Kalyuga, Marika
    2020 Russian Prepositional Phrases: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach. Singapore: Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑15‑5216‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5216-8 [Google Scholar]
28. Knoblock, Natalia
    2017 “Xenophobic Trumpeters: A Corpus-Assisted Discourse Study of Donald Trump’s Facebook Conversations.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict(): –. 10.1075/jlac.5.2.07kno
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.5.2.07kno [Google Scholar]
29. Knoblock, Natalia
    (ed.) 2020 Language of Conflict: Discourses of the Ukrainian Crisis. New York: Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781350098633
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350098633 [Google Scholar]
30. Knoblock, Natalia
    (ed.) 2022 The Grammar of Hate: Morphosyntactic Features of Hateful, Aggressive, and Dehumanizing Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108991841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108991841 [Google Scholar]
31. Kolomiyets, Lada
    2020 “Manipulative Mistranslations in Official Documents and Media Discourses on Contemporary Ukraine.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies(): –.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Kompaniiets, Olesia
    2017 “A Preposition as a Marker of Identity: Ukraine Case.” White Paper on the Key Role of Human Geography, Culture and Language in Effective Communication. A Strategic Multilayer Assessment (SMA), Periodic Publication: –.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Koschalka, Ben
    2022 “War in Ukraine Revives Linguistic Debate in Poland over how to Say ‘in Ukraine’”. Notes from Poland, March4.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Kramsch, Claire
    2020 Language as Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108869386
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108869386 [Google Scholar]
35. Kranert, Michael
    2017 “‘Today I Offer you, and we Offer the Country a New Vision’: The Strategic Use of First Person Pronouns in Party Conference Speeches of the Third Way.” Discourse & Society(): –. 10.1177/0957926516685463
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926516685463 [Google Scholar]
36. Krivoruchko, Julia
    2008 “Prepositional Wars: When Ideology Defines Prepositions”. InAdpositions: Pragmatic, Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives, edited byDennis Kurzon, and Silvia Adler, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.74.10kri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.74.10kri [Google Scholar]
37. Kuzio, Taras
    1998 “Ukraine: Coming to Terms with the Soviet Legacy.” The Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics(): –. 10.1080/13523279808415388
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13523279808415388 [Google Scholar]
38. Kuznetsova, Daria
    2023 “Broadcasting Messages via Telegram: Pro-Government Social Media Control During the 2020 Protests in Belarus and 2022 Anti-War Protests in Russia.” Political Communication: –.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Lapychak, Chrystyna
    1991 “Over 90% Vote Yes in Referendum; Kravchuk Elected President of Ukraine.” The Ukrainian Weekly ().
    [Google Scholar]
40. Louw, Bill
    1993 “Irony in the Text or Insincerity in the Writer? The Diagnostic Potential of Semantic Prosodies.” InText and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, edited byMona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, –. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.64.11lou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.11lou [Google Scholar]
41. Lucas, Kristen, and Jeremy P. Fyke
    2014 “Euphemisms and Ethics: A Language-Centered Analysis of Penn State’s Sexual Abuse Scandal.” Journal of Business Ethics(): –. 10.1007/s10551‑013‑1777‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1777-0 [Google Scholar]
42. Makhortykh, Mykola, and Yehor Lyebyedyev
    2015 “# SaveDonbassPeople: Twitter, Propaganda, and Conflict in Eastern Ukraine.” The Communication Review(): –. 10.1080/10714421.2015.1085776
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2015.1085776 [Google Scholar]
43. Mellon, Jonathan, and Christopher Prosser
    2017 “Twitter and Facebook are not Representative of the General Population: Political Attitudes and Demographics of British Social Media Users.” Research and Politics(): 053168017720008. 10.1177/2053168017720008
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168017720008 [Google Scholar]
44. Motschenbacher, Heiko
    2020 “Greece, the Netherlands and (the) Ukraine: A Corpus-based Study of Definite Article Use with Country Names.” Names(): –. 10.1080/00277738.2020.1731241
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00277738.2020.1731241 [Google Scholar]
45. Partington, Alan
    2004 “‘Utterly Content in Each Other’s Company’: Semantic Prosody and Semantic Preference.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics(): –. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.07par
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.07par [Google Scholar]
46. Partington, Alan
    2014 “Evaluative Prosody.” InCorpus Pragmatics: A Handbook, edited byKarin Aijmer, and Christoph Rühlemann, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139057493.015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493.015 [Google Scholar]
47. Proctor, Katarzyna, and Lily I-Wen Su
    2011 “The 1st Person Plural in Political Discourse—American Politicians in Interviews and in a Debate.” Journal of Pragmatics(): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010 [Google Scholar]
48. Redmon, Robert
    2022 On the Development of a Twig: a Suite of Tools for the Analysis of Discourse on Twitter. Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University.
49. Rumyantsev, Oleg
    2019 “Tra Grammatica e Politica: L’uso delle Preposizioni v е na Davanti al Termine Ucraina.” EURASIATICA: –.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Ruytenbeek, Nicolas, Sofie Decock, and Ilse Depraetere
    2023 “The Impact of Linguistic Choices and (Para-)Linguistic Markers on the Perception of Twitter Complaints by Other Customers: An Experimental Approach.” Journal of Politeness Research(): –. 10.1515/pr‑2021‑0031
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2021-0031 [Google Scholar]
51. Sabatovych, Iana
    2019 “Do Social Media Create Revolutions? Using Twitter Sentiment Analysis for Predicting the Maidan Revolution in Ukraine.” Global Media and Communication(): –. 10.1177/1742766519872780
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1742766519872780 [Google Scholar]
52. Salama, Amir Hamza Youssef
    2011 Ideological Collocation in Meta-Wahhabi Discourse Post-911: A Symbiosis of Critical Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics. PhD Thesis, Lancaster University.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Scott, Kate
    2015 “The Pragmatics of Hashtags: Inference and Conversational Style on Twitter.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.015 [Google Scholar]
54. Sinclair, John
    1991 Corpus, Concordance, and Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Solopova, Veronika, Christoph Benzmüller, and Tim Landgraf
    2023 “The Evolution of Pro-Kremlin Propaganda from a Machine Learning and Linguistics Perspective.” InProceedings of the Second Ukrainian Natural Language Processing Workshop (UNLP): –. 10.18653/v1/2023.unlp‑1.5
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.unlp-1.5 [Google Scholar]
56. Steblyna, Nataliia
    2020 “Selling Insecurity via Twitter: Ukrainian President’s Posts and Modern Political Discourse.” Przegląd Strategiczny(): –. 10.14746/ps.2020.1.19
    https://doi.org/10.14746/ps.2020.1.19 [Google Scholar]
57. Stubbs, Michael
    1995 “Collocations and Semantic Profiles: On the Cause of the Trouble with Quantitative Studies.” Functions of Language(): –. 10.1075/fol.2.1.03stu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.2.1.03stu [Google Scholar]
58. Taylor, Charlotte
    2020 “Representing the Windrush Generation: Metaphor in Discourses Then and Now.” Critical Discourse Studies(): –. 10.1080/17405904.2018.1554535
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2018.1554535 [Google Scholar]
59. Walter, Dror, Yotam Ophir, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson
    2020 “Russian Twitter Accounts and the Partisan Polarization of Vaccine Discourse, 2015–2017.” American Journal of Public Health(): –. 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305564
    https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305564 [Google Scholar]
60. Wanner, Catherine
    2014 “‘Fraternal’ Nations and Challenges to Sovereignty in Ukraine: The Politics of Linguistic and Religious Ties.” American Ethnologist(): –. 10.1111/amet.12097
    https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.12097 [Google Scholar]
61. Zappavigna, Michele
    2014 “Enacting Identity in Microblogging through Ambient Affiliation.” Discourse and Communication(): –. 10.1177/1750481313510816
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481313510816 [Google Scholar]
62. Zia, Haris Bin, Ehsan Ul Haq, Ignacio Castro, Pan Hui, and Gareth Tyson
    2023 “An Analysis of Twitter Discourse on the War Between Russia and Ukraine.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11390.
    [Google Scholar]