oa Dramatic monologues

References

1. Bamford, Julia
   (2000) Question and answer sequencing in academic lectures. In M. Coulthard , J. Cotterill , and F. Rock (eds.), Dialogue Analysis VII: Working with Dialogue. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, pp.159-169.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Berg-Seligson, Susan
   (2009) Coerced Confessions: The Discourse of Bilingual Police Interrogations. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110213492
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213492 [Google Scholar]
3. Berman, Ruth
   (2004) Introduction: Developing discourse stance in different text types and languages. Journal of Pragmatics37: 105-124. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.08.003
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.08.003 [Google Scholar]
4. Chaemsaithong, Krisda
   (2012a) Performing self on the witness stand: Stance and relational work in expert witness testimony. Discourse & Society23: 465-486. doi: 10.1177/0957926512441111
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926512441111 [Google Scholar]
5. Chaemsaithong, Krisda
   (2012b) Beyond questions and answers: Strategic use of multiple identities in the historical courtroom. In I. Hegedüs , and A. Fodor (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2010. Amsterdam: John Benmamins Publishing Company, pp.349-368. doi: 10.1075/cilt.325.16cha
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.325.16cha [Google Scholar]
6. Cotterill, Janet
   (2001) Domestic discourse, rocky relationships: Semantic prosodies in representations of marital violence in the O.J. Simpson trial. Discourse & Society12: 291-312. doi: 10.1177/0957926501012003002
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012003002 [Google Scholar]
7. Cotterill, Janet
   (2003) Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Duszak, Anna
   (ed.) (2002) Us and Others: Social Identities across Languages, Discourses and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.98
   https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.98 [Google Scholar]
9. Englebretson, Robert
   (ed.) (2007) Stancetaking in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.164
   https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164 [Google Scholar]
10. Fuller, Janet
    (1993) Hearing between the lines: Style switching in a courtroom setting. Pragmatics3: 29-43.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Goffman, Erving
    (1981) Footing. In E. Goffman (ed.), Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp.124-159.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Gray, Bethany , and Douglas Biber
    (2012) Current conceptions of stance. In K. Hyland , and C. Sancho Guinda (eds.), Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.15-33.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Harris, Sandra
    (2001) Fragmented narratives and multiple tellers: Witness and defendant accounts in trials. Discourse Studies3: 53-74. doi: 10.1177/1461445601003001003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445601003001003 [Google Scholar]
14. Hobbs, Pamela
    (2003) “Is that what we’re here about?”: A lawyer’s use of impression management in a closing argument at trial. Discourse & Society14: 273-290.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Hobbs, Pamela
    (2008) “It’s not what you say but how you say it”: The role of personality and identity in trial success. Critical Discourse Studies5: 231-248. doi: 10.1080/17405900802131744
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900802131744 [Google Scholar]
16. Hunston, Susan , and Geoffrey Thompson
    (eds.) (2000) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Hyland, Ken
    (2001) Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics34: 1191-1121.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Hyland, Ken
    (2005) Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies7: 173-192. doi: 10.1177/1461445605050365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
19. Hyland, Ken
    (2008) Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction1: 5-22. doi: 10.1075/etc.1.1.03hyl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.1.1.03hyl [Google Scholar]
20. Kärkkäinen, Elise
    (2006) Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text & Talk26: 669-731. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2006.029
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.029 [Google Scholar]
21. Kitagawa, Chisato , and Adrienne Lehrer
    (1990) Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics14: 739-759. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90004‑W
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90004-W [Google Scholar]
22. Levinson, Stephen
    (1988) Putting Linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In P. Drew , and A. Wootton (eds.), Erving Goffman. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, pp.161-227.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Lind, Allen , and Gina Ke
    (1985) Opening and closing statements. In S. Kassin , and L. Wrightsman (eds.), The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. London: Sage, 229-253.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Mao, LuMing
    (1996) Chinese first person pronoun and social implicature. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication7: 106-128.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Matoesian, Gregory
    (1999) The grammaticalization of participant roles in the constitution of expert identity. Language in Society28: 491-521. doi: 10.1017/S0047404599004017
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404599004017 [Google Scholar]
26. Matoesian, Gregory
    (2001) Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Mauranen, Anna
    (2003) “But here’s a flawed argument”: Socialisation into and through metadiscourse. In P. Leistyna , and C.F. Meyer (eds.), Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp.19-34.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Meyers, Miriam
    (1990) Current generic pronoun usage. American Speech65: 228-237. doi: 10.2307/455911
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455911 [Google Scholar]
29. Pascual, Esther
    (2002) Imaginary Trialogues: Conceptual Blending and Fictive Interaction in Criminal Courts. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Pascual, Esther
    (2006) Questions in legal monologues: Fictive interaction as argumentative strategy in a murder trial. Text and Talk26: 383-402. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2006.014a
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.014a [Google Scholar]
31. Pennington, Nancy , and Reid Hastie
    (1991) A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cordoza Law Review13: 519-557.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Rosulek, Laura
    (2010a) Legitimation and the heteroglossic nature of closing arguments. In D. Schiffrin , A. de Fina , and A. Nylund (eds.), Telling Stories: Language, Narrative, and Social Life. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, pp.181-193.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Rosulek, Laura
    (2010b) Prosecution and defense closing speeches: The creation of contrastive closing arguments. In M. Coulthard , and A. Johnson (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. New York: Routledge, pp.218-230.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Siewierska, Anna
    (2004) Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511812729
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812729 [Google Scholar]
35. Snedaker, Kathryn
    (1991) Storytelling in opening statements: Framing the argumentation of the trial. In D. Papke (ed.), Narrative and the Legal Discourse. Liverpool: Deborah Charles Publications, pp.132-157.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Stygall, Gail
    (1994) Trial Language: Differential Discourse Processing and Discursive Formation. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.26
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.26 [Google Scholar]
37. Spiecker, Shelley , and Debra Worthington
    (2003) The influence of opening statement/closing argument organizational strategy on juror verdict and damage awards. Law and Human Behavior27: 437-456. doi: 10.1023/A:1024041201605
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024041201605 [Google Scholar]
38. Tannen, Deborah
    (2007) Talking voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511618987
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618987 [Google Scholar]
39. Thompson, Geoff , and Puleng Thetela
    (1995) The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text15: 103-207.
    [Google Scholar]
40. van Leeuwen, Theo
    (2007) Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication1: 91-112. doi: 10.1177/1750481307071986
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986 [Google Scholar]
41. Wales, Katie
    (1996) Personal Pronouns in Present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
42. White, P.R.R
    (2003) Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text23: 259-284.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Wierzbicka, Anna
    (1974) The semantics of direct and indirect discourse. Papers in Linguistics7: 267-307. doi: 10.1080/08351817409370375
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351817409370375 [Google Scholar]
44. Wortham, Stanton
    (1994) Acting out Participant Examples in the Classroom. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.30
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.30 [Google Scholar]
45. Wortham, Stanton
    (1996) Mapping participant deictics: A technique for discovering speakers’ footing. Journal of Pragmatics25: 331-248. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00100‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00100-6 [Google Scholar]
46. Zupnik, Yael-Janette
    (1994) A pragmatic analysis of the use of person deixis in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics21: 339-384. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90010‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90010-8 [Google Scholar]