Dialogic meaning-making in political settings

References

1. AristotleT. A. Sinclair
   Aristotle 1992 The Politics. Translated byT. A. Sinclair, revised and re-presented byT. J. Saunders. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
   1981 The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Translated byCaryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
   1984 Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Ed. & transl. byCaryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 10.5749/j.ctt22727z1
   https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt22727z1 [Google Scholar]
4. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
   1986 Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Translated byVern W. McGee; ed. byMichael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Buber, Martin
   1959 Besod Siach (The Dialogue on Man and Being). Hebrew translation byHugo Bergman, Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Buber, Martin
   1965 “Dialogue.” InBetween Man and Man, translation byRonald Gregor Smith. London: Macmillan. [First published 1947 by Routledge and Kegan Paul].
   [Google Scholar]
7. Buber, Martin
   1970 I and Thou. Translated byWalter Kauffman, New York: Touchstone.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Cap, Piotr, and Urszula Okulska
   2013 “Analyzing genres in political communication: An introduction.” InAnalyzing Genres in Political Communication: Theory and Practice, ed. byPiotr Cap and Urszula Okulska1–26. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.50.01cap
   https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50.01cap [Google Scholar]
9. Charaudau, Patrick
   2002 “Rôle.” InDictionnaire d’Analyse du Discours, ed. byPatrick Charaudeau and Dominique Maingueneau, 513–515. Paris: Éd. Le Seuil.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Chilton, Paul, and Christina Schäffner
    1997 “Discourse and politics.” InDiscourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol. 2: Discourse as Social Interaction, ed. byTeun A. van Dijk, 206–230. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Chilton, Paul, and Christina Schäffner
    2002 “Introduction: Themes and principles in the analysis of political discourse.” InPolitics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, ed. byPaul Chilton and Christina Schäffner, 1–44. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.4.03chi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.4.03chi [Google Scholar]
12. Chilton, Paul
    2004 Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203561218
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218 [Google Scholar]
13. Dascal, Marcelo
    1977 “Conversational relevance.” Journal of Pragmatics11: 309–328. 10.1016/0378‑2166(77)90026‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(77)90026-1 [Google Scholar]
14. Dascal, Marcelo, and Asher Idan
    1989 “From individual to collective action.” InThe philosophy of Leo Apostel – descriptive and critical essays, ed. byFernand Vandamme and Raoul Pinxten, 133–148. Ghent: Communication and Cognition.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Fetzer, Anita
    2013 “The multilayered and multifaceted nature of political discourse.” InThe Pragmatics of Political Discourse: Explorations across Cultures, ed. byAnita Fetzer, 1–18. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.228.01fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.228.01fet [Google Scholar]
16. Fetzer, Anita
    2019 “Some food for thought on the theory and practice of internet pragmatics.” Internet Pragmatics2 (1): 34–40. 10.1075/ip.00019.fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00019.fet [Google Scholar]
17. Fetzer, Anita, and Peter Bull
    2013 “Political interviews in context.” InAnalyzing Genres in Political Communication, ed. byPiotr Cap and Urszula Okulska (eds.), 73–99. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.50.04fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50.04fet [Google Scholar]
18. Fetzer, Anita, and Elda Weizman
    2015 “Following up across contexts and discourse domains: Introduction.” InFollow-ups in Political Discourse, ed. byElda Weizman and Anita Fetzer, ix–xix. 10.1075/dapsac.60.001int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60.001int [Google Scholar]
19. Fetzer, Anita, Elda Weizman, and Lawrence N. Berlin
    (eds.) 2015 The Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-ups. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.259
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.259 [Google Scholar]
20. Fetzer, Anita, and Elda Weizman
    2018 “‘What I would say to John and everyone like John is …’: The construction of ordinariness through quotations in mediated political discourse.” Discourse and Society29 (5): 495–513. 10.1177/0957926518770259
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926518770259 [Google Scholar]
21. Friedman, Maurice
    2005 “Martin Buber and Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogue of Voices and the Word that is Spoken”. InDialogue as a Means of Collective Communication, ed. byBela Banathly and Patrick M. Jenlink, 29–40. New York: Kluwer. 10.1007/0‑306‑48690‑3_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48690-3_3 [Google Scholar]
22. Goffman, Erving
    1959 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Penguin Books
    [Google Scholar]
23. Gruber, Helmut
    2013 “Genres in political discourse: the case of the ‘inaugural speech’ by Austrian chancellors.” InAnalyzing Genres in Political Communication, ed. byPiotr Cap and Urszula Okulska, 29–71. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.50.03gru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50.03gru [Google Scholar]
24. Gruber, Helmut
    2013 “Genres in political discourse: The case of the ‘inaugural speech’ of Austrian chancellors.” InAnalyzing Genres in Political Communication, ed. byPiotr Cap and Urszula Okulska, 73–99. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.50.03gru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50.03gru [Google Scholar]
25. Gruber, Helmut
    2019 “Genres, media, and recontextualization practices: Re-considering basic concepts of genre theory in the age of social media.” Internet Pragmatics2 (1): 54–82. 10.1075/ip.00023.gru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00023.gru [Google Scholar]
26. Horsbøl, Anders
    2018 “United we diverge: Politician Facebook responses to terror attacks.” InDoing Politics: Discursivity, Performativity and Mediation in Political Discourse, ed. byMichael Kranert and Geraldine Horan, 235–258. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.80.10hor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.80.10hor [Google Scholar]
27. Hymes, Dell
    1974 Foundations of Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Kampf, Zohar
    2020 “‘Do you condemn?’ Negotiating power relations through (in)direct questions and answers design in ethno-political interviews.” InThe Discourse of Indirectness: Cues, Voices and Functions, ed. byZohar Livnat, Pnina Shukrun-Nagar, and Galia Hirsch, 231–251. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.316.10kam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.316.10kam [Google Scholar]
29. Kohn, Ayelet
    2016 “The Polyphonic Framing of Ehud Olmert.” Israel Studies in Language and Society9 (1–2): 116–141. [In Hebrew.]
    [Google Scholar]
30. Kohn, Ayelet, and Rachel Weissbrod
    2020 “Anne Frank’s Diary – The Graphic Adaptation as a case of ‘indirect translation’: Integrating the principle of relevance with Bakhtinian concepts.” InThe Discourse of Indirectness: Cues, Voices and Functions, ed. byZohar Livnat, Pnina Shukrun-Nagar, and Galia Hirsch, 119–142. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.316.06wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.316.06wei [Google Scholar]
31. Kranert, Michael, and Geraldine Horan
    2018 “Introduction: ‘Doing politics’ – recent developments in political discourse analysis.” InDoing Politics: Discursivity, Performativity and Mediation in Political Discourse, ed. byMichael Kranert and Geraldine Horan, 1–28. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.80.01kra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.80.01kra [Google Scholar]
32. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1992 “Activity types and language.” In Talk at Work, ed. byPaul Drew and John Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Livnat, Zohar
    2012 Dialogue, Science and Academic Writing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.13
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.13 [Google Scholar]
34. Livnat, Zohar, and Ayelet Kohn
    2018 “Morality, loyalty and eloquence: Conversational challenges and resources in a televised confrontational dialogue.” Journal of Language and Politics17 (3): 405–427. 10.1075/jlp.17001.liv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17001.liv [Google Scholar]
35. Livnat, Zohar, and Beverly Lewin
    2016 “The interpersonal strand of political speech: Recruiting the audience in PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s speeches.” Language and Dialogue6 (2): 275–305. 10.1075/ld.6.2.04liv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.2.04liv [Google Scholar]
36. Mey, Jacob L.
    2000 When Voices Clash: A Study in Literary Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Mey, Jacob L.
    2015 “Sequentiality and follow-ups.” InThe Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-Ups, ed. byAnita Fetzer, Elda Weizman, and Lawrence Berlin, 17–31. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.259.01mey
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.259.01mey [Google Scholar]
38. Morson, Gary Saul, and Caryl Emerson
    1990 Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a Prosaics. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. 10.1515/9780804765961
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804765961 [Google Scholar]
39. Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    1969 The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Translated byJohn Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred R.
    1922 The Andaman Islanders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Scannell, Paddy
    1991 “Introduction: The Relevance of Talk.” InBroadcast talk, ed. byPaddy Scannell, 1–13. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Searle, John
    1992 “Conversation.” In(On) Searle on Conversation, ed. byHerman Parret and Jef Verschueren, 7–29. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.21.02sea
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.21.02sea [Google Scholar]
43. Searle, John R.
    2010 Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195396171.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195396171.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
44. Tolson, Andrew
    2006 Media talk: Spoken Discourse on TV and Radio. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Vanderveken, Daniel
    1984 “What is an illocutionary force?” inDialogue: An Interdisciplinary Approach, ed. byMarcelo Dascal, 185–207. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbcs.1.19van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbcs.1.19van [Google Scholar]
46. van Dijk, Teun A.
    1985 “Introduction: Dialogue as Discourse and Interaction.” InHandbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. byTeun A. van Dijk, Vol.31, 1–11. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
47. van Dijk, Teun A.
    1997 “What is political discourse analysis?” Belgian Journal of Linguistics11 (1): 11–52. 10.1075/bjl.11.03dij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.11.03dij [Google Scholar]
48. Weizman, Elda
    1998 “Individual intentions and collective purpose: The case of news interviews.” InDialogue Analysis61, Vol.21, ed. bySvětlá Čmejrková, Jana Hoffmannová, Olga Müllerová, and Jindra Světlá, 269–280. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110965049‑030
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110965049-030 [Google Scholar]
49. Weizman, Elda, and Shoshana Blum-Kulka
    1992 “Ordinary misunderstanding.” InCurrent Advances in Semantic Theory, ed. byMaxim I. Stamenov, 419–434. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.73.34wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.73.34wei [Google Scholar]
50. Weizman, Elda
    2008 Positioning in Media Dialogue: The Case of News Interviews on Israeli Television. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.3 [Google Scholar]
51. Weizman, Elda
    2013 “Political irony: Constructing reciprocal positioning in the news interview.” InThe Pragmatics of Political Discourse: Explorations across Cultures, ed. byAnita Fetzer, 167–190. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.228.09wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.228.09wei [Google Scholar]
52. Weizman, Elda
    2018 “Commenting on in-memoriam columns: Juggling with deliberative and epidictic norms.” Internet Pragmatics1 (1): 161–183. 10.1075/ip.00008.wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00008.wei [Google Scholar]
53. Weizman, Elda, and Anita Fetzer
    (eds.) 2015 Follow-ups in Political Discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.60
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60 [Google Scholar]
54. Weizman, Elda, and Anita Fetzer
    2018 “Constructing ordinariness in online journals: a corpus-based study in the Israeli context.” Israel Studies in Language and Society11 (1): 23–48.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Weizman, Elda, and Anita Fetzer
    2019 “Introduction.” InThe Construction of Ordinariness in Media Genres, ed. byAnita Fetzer and Elda Weizman, 1–17. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.307.01wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.307.01wei [Google Scholar]
56. Widdicombe, Sue
    1998 “‘But you don’t class yourself’: The interactional management of category membership and non-membership.” InIdentities in Talk, ed. byCharles Antaki and Sue Widdicombe, 52–70. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Wilson, Deirdre
    2012 “Metarepresentation in linguistic communication.” InMeaning and Relevance, ed. byDeirdre Wilson and Dan Sperber, 230–258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [First published inDan Sperber (ed.) 2000 Metarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000, 411–48]. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370.014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370.014 [Google Scholar]
58. Zimmerman, Don
    1998 “Identity, context and interaction.” InIdentities in Talk, ed. byCharles Antaki and Sue Widdicombe, 87–106. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]