The use of boosters and evidentials in British campaign debates on the Brexit referendum

References

1. Abdollahzadeh, Esmaeel
   2011 “Poring Over the Findings: Interpersonal Authorial Engagement in Applied Linguistics Papers.” Journal of Pragmatics431: 288–297. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019 [Google Scholar]
2. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
   2005 Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Albalat-Mascarell, Ana
   2015 “El metadiscurso como marco de análisis comparativo funcional entre el inglés y el español en los discursos de especialidad.” Revista Académica Liletrad11: 87–96.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Albalat-Mascarell, Ana, and María Luisa Carrió-Pastor
   2019 “Self-representation in Political Campaign Talk: A Functional Metadiscourse Approach to Self-mentions in Televised Presidential Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics1471: 86–99. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.011
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.011 [Google Scholar]
5. Alonso-Almeida, Francisco
   2015 “On the Mitigation Function of Modality and Evidentiality. Evidence from English and Spanish Medical Research Papers.” Intercultural Pragmatics12 (1): 33–57. 10.1515/ip‑2015‑0002
   https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0002 [Google Scholar]
6. Alonso-Almeida, Francisco, and María Luisa Carrió-Pastor
   2017 “Variation and Function of Modals in Linguistics and Engineering Research Papers in English.” InEvidentiality and Modality in European Languages. Discourse-Pragmatic Perspectives, ed. byJuana I. Marín-Arrese, Julia Lavid-López, Marta Carratero, Elena Domínguez Romero, Ma Victoria Martín de la Rosa, and María Pérez Blanco, 242–277. Bern: Peter Lang.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Alonso-Almeida, Francisco, and María Luisa Carrió-Pastor
   2019 “Constructing Legitimation in Scottish Newspapers: The Case of the Independence Referendum.” Discourse Studies211: 621–635. 10.1177/1461445619866982
   https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445619866982 [Google Scholar]
8. Andrus, Jennifer
   2009 “The Development of an Artefactual Language Ideology: Utterance, Event, and Agency in the Metadiscourse of the Excited Utterance Exception to Hearsay.” Language & Communication291: 312–327. 10.1016/j.langcom.2009.05.001
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2009.05.001 [Google Scholar]
9. Berlin, Lawrence N., and Alejandra Prieto-Mendoza
   2014 “Evidential Embellishment in Political Debates during US Campaigns.” Intercultural Pragmatics11 (3): 389–409. 10.1515/ip‑2014‑0018
   https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2014-0018 [Google Scholar]
10. Buckledee, Steve
    2018 The Language of Brexit: How Britain Talked Its Way Out of the European Union. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Boyd, Michael S.
    2014 “(New) Participatory Framework on Youtube? Commenter Interaction in US Political Speeches.” Journal of Pragmatics721: 46–58. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.03.002 [Google Scholar]
12. Brown, Keith
    2005 Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Bussmann, Hadumod
    2006 Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203980057
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203980057 [Google Scholar]
14. Cap, Piotr
    2017 “Studying Ideological Worldviews in Political Discourse Space: Critical-Cognitive Advances in the Analysis of Conflict and Coercion.” Journal of Pragmatics1081: 17–27. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.11.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.11.008 [Google Scholar]
15. Cap, Piotr, and Ursula Okulska
    (eds.) 2013 Analyzing Genres in Political Communication: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.50
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50 [Google Scholar]
16. Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa
    2014 “Cross-Cultural Variation in the Use of Modal Verbs in Academic English.” SKY Journal of Linguistics271: 153–166.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa, and Ruth Muñiz-Calderón
    2015 “Identification and Causes of Lexical Variation in Chinese Business English.” English Today311: 10–15. 10.1017/S0266078414000480
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078414000480 [Google Scholar]
18. Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa
    2016a “Mitigation of Claims in Medical Research Papers: A Comparative Study of English and Spanish Writers.” Communication & Medicine131: 1–25.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa
    2016b “A Contrastive Study of the Hedges Used by English, Spanish and Chinese Researchers in Academic Papers.” InInput a Word, Analyze the World: Selected Approaches to Corpus Linguistics, ed. byFrancisco Alonso Almeida, Ivalla Ortega Barrera, Elena Quintana Toledo, and Margarita E. Sánchez Cuervo, 477–492. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa
    2016c “A Contrastive Study of Interactive Metadiscourse in Academic Papers Written in English and in Spanish.” InCorpus-Based Studies on Language Varieties, ed. byFrancisco Alonso Almeida, Laura Cruz García, and Víctor González Ruiz, 89–114. Bern: Linguistic Insights.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa
    2019a “Different Ways to Express Personal Attitudes in Spanish and English Engineering Papers: An Analysis of Metadiscourse Devices, Affective Evaluation and Sentiment Analysis.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics15 (1): 45–67. 10.1515/lpp‑2019‑0004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2019-0004 [Google Scholar]
22. Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa
    2019b “Do Writers Express the Same Attitude in Historical Genres?” InWriting History in Late Modern English. Explorations of The Coruña Corpus, ed. byIsabel Moskowich, Begoña Crespo, Luis Puente-Castelo, and Leida Maria Monaco, 237–259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.225.12car
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.225.12car [Google Scholar]
23. Dafouz, Emma
    2008 “The Pragmatic Role of Textual and Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in the Construction and Attainment of Persuasion: A Cross-Linguistic Study of Newspaper Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics40 (1): 95–113. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003 [Google Scholar]
24. Dahl, Trine
    2004 “Textual Metadiscourse in Research Articles: A Marker of National Culture or of Academic Discipline?” Journal of Pragmatics361: 1807–1825. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004 [Google Scholar]
25. Eriksson, Göran
    2011 “Follow-Up Questions in Political Press Conferences.” Journal of Pragmatics431: 3331–3344. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.07.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.07.004 [Google Scholar]
26. Estellés, María
    2019 “The Evolution of Parliamentary Debates in Light of the Evolution of Evidentials: Al Parecer and Por Lo Visto in 40 Years of Parliamentary Proceedings from Spain.” Corpus Pragmatics41: 59–82. 10.1007/s41701‑019‑00066‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-019-00066-9 [Google Scholar]
27. Fetzer, Anita, and Gerda Lauerbach
    (eds.) 2007 Political Discourse in the Media: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.160
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.160 [Google Scholar]
28. Fracchiolla, Béatrice
    2011 “Politeness as a Strategy of Attack in a Gendered Political Debate. The Royal–Sarkozy Debate.” Journal of Pragmatics43 (10): 2480–2488. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.006 [Google Scholar]
29. Friedman, Elie, and Zohar Kampf
    2014 “Politically Speaking at Home and Abroad: A Typology of Message Gap Strategies.” Discourse & Society25 (6): 706–724. 10.1177/0957926514536836
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926514536836 [Google Scholar]
30. García-Pastor, María Dolores
    2008 “Political Campaign Debates as Zero-Sum Games: Impoliteness and Power in Candidates’ Exchanges.” InImpoliteness in Language, ed. byDerek Bousfield, and Miriam A. Locher, 101–126. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Gnisci, Augusto, Pierpaolo Zollo, Marco Perugini, and Angiola Di Conza
    2013 “A Comparative Study of Toughness and Neutrality in Italian and English Political Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics50 (1): 152–167. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.009 [Google Scholar]
32. Hyland, Ken
    1998 “Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse.” Journal of Pragmatics30 (4): 437–455. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00009‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5 [Google Scholar]
33. Hyland, Ken, and Polly Tse
    2004 “Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal.” Applied Linguistics25 (2): 156–177. 10.1093/applin/25.2.156
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156 [Google Scholar]
34. Hyland, Ken
    2004 “Disciplinary Interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 Postgraduate Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing131: 133–151. 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001 [Google Scholar]
35. Hyland, Ken
    2005 Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Hyland, Ken
    2010 “Metadiscourse: Mapping Interactions in Academic Writing.” Nordic Journal of English Studies9 (2): 125–143. 10.35360/njes.220
    https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.220 [Google Scholar]
37. Hyland, Ken
    2015 “Metadiscourse.” InThe International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction 3 Volume Set, ed. byKaren Tracy, Cornelia Ilie, and Todd Sandel, 997–1006. London: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi003
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi003 [Google Scholar]
38. Ilie, Cornelia
    2003 “Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates.” Journal of Language and Politics2 (1): 71–92. 10.1075/jlp.2.1.05ili
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.2.1.05ili [Google Scholar]
39. Jalilifar, Alireza, and Maryam Alavi-Nia
    2012 “We Are Surprised; Wasn’t Iran Disgraced There? A Functional Analysis of Hedges and Boosters in Televised Iranian and American Presidential Debates.” Discourse & Communication6 (2): 135–161. 10.1177/1750481311434763
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481311434763 [Google Scholar]
40. Kampf, Zohar
    2016 “All the Best! Performing Solidarity in Political Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics931: 47–60. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.006 [Google Scholar]
41. Koutsantoni, Dimitra
    2004 “Attitude, Certainty and Allusions to Common Knowledge in Scientific Research Articles.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes31: 163–182. 10.1016/j.jeap.2003.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2003.08.001 [Google Scholar]
42. Lauerbach, Gerda
    2007 “Argumentation in Political Talk Show Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics391: 1388–1419. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.004 [Google Scholar]
43. Liu, Dilin, and Lei Lei
    2018 “The Appeal to Political Sentiment: An Analysis of Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s Speech Themes and Discourse Strategies in the 2016 US Presidential Election.” Discourse, Context & Media251: 143–152. 10.1016/j.dcm.2018.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2018.05.001 [Google Scholar]
44. Marín-Arrese, Juana I.
    2011 “Epistemic Legitimizing Strategies, Commitment and Accountability in Discourse.” Discourse Studies13 (6): 789–797. 10.1177/1461445611421360c
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611421360c [Google Scholar]
45. Marín-Arrese, Juana I., Marta Carretero, Jorge A. Hita, and Johan Van der Auwera
    (eds) 2013 English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110286328
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110286328 [Google Scholar]
46. Marín-Arrese, Juana I., Gerda Hassler, and Marta Carretero
    (eds) 2017 Evidentiality Revisited: Cognitive Grammar, Functional and Discourse-Pragmatic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.271
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.271 [Google Scholar]
47. Moya-Muñoz, Patricio, and María Luisa Carrió-Pastor
    2018 “Estrategias de intensificación en los comentarios digitales sobre noticias en español: un análisis de la variación entre España y Chile.” Spanish in Context151: 369–391. 10.1075/sic.00019.car
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.00019.car [Google Scholar]
48. Mur-Dueñas, Pilar
    2011 “An Intercultural Analysis of Metadiscourse Features in Research Articles Written in English and in Spanish.” Journal of Pragmatics431: 3068–3079. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002 [Google Scholar]
49. Musolff, Andreas
    2017 “Metaphor, Irony and Sarcasm in Public Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics1091: 95–104. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.010 [Google Scholar]
50. Proctor, Katarzyna, I. Lily, and Wen Su
    2011 “The 1st Person Plural in Political Discourse. American Politicians in Interviews and in a Debate.” Journal of Pragmatics43 (43): 3251–3266. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010 [Google Scholar]
51. Remer, Gary
    2008 “Genres of Political Speech: Oratory and Conversation, Today and in Antiquity.” Language & Communication28 (2): 182–196. 10.1016/j.langcom.2008.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2008.01.003 [Google Scholar]
52. Rendle-Short, Johanna
    2007 “‘Catherine, You’re Wasting Your Time’: Address Terms within the Australian Political Interview.” Journal of Pragmatics39 (9): 1503–1525. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.006 [Google Scholar]
53. Sclafani, Jennifer
    2017 Talking Donald Trump: A Sociolinguistic Study of Style, Metadiscourse and Political Identity. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315276885
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315276885 [Google Scholar]
54. Thompson, Geoff
    2001 “Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue with the Reader.” Applied Linguistics22 (1): 58–78. 10.1093/applin/22.1.58
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58 [Google Scholar]
55. Zhang, Man, Weiwei Sun, Huan Peng, Qiong Gan, and Bo Yu
    2017 “A Multidimensional Analysis of Metadiscourse Markers across Spoken Registers.” Journal of Pragmatics1171: 106–118. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.004 [Google Scholar]