Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T18:44:17.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2021

Elisabeth Reber
Elisabeth Reber
Affiliation:
University of Würzburg
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Quoting in Parliamentary Question Time
Exploring Recent Change
 , pp. 325 - 342
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarts, F. G. A. M. (1971). On the distribution of noun phrase types in English clause structure. Lingua, 26: 281–293.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2004). The interface between perception, evidentiality and discourse particle use – using a translation corpus to study the polysemy of see. TRADTERM – Journal of the Interdepartmental Centre for Translation and Terminology of the FFLCH/USP, 10: 249–277.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2009). Seem and evidentiality. Functions of Language, 16 (1): 63–88.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2006. Evidentiality in grammar. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 4, 2nd edn, Oxford: Elsevier, 320–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, L. B. (1986). Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: typologically regular asymmetries. In Chafe, W. L. and Nichols, J., eds., Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 273–312.Google Scholar
Antaki, C. and Leudar, I. (2001). Recruiting the record: Using opponents’ exact words in parliamentary argumentation. Text, 21 (4): 467–488.Google Scholar
Arendholz, J., Kirner, M. and Bublitz, W., eds. (2015). Quoting Now and Then. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. (1982). Understanding formality: Notes on the categorisation and production of ‘formal’ interaction. British Journal of Sociology, 33: 86–117.Google Scholar
Atkinson, M. (1984). Our Masters’ Voices: The language and body language of politics. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. and Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (2000). On line-Syntax – oder: Was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der mündlichen Sprache ernst zu nehmen. Special issue ‘Die Medialität der Gesprochenen Sprache’. Sprache und Literatur, 85: 43–56.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25 (1): 7–36.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (2015). The temporality of language in interaction: Projection and latency. In Deppermann, A. and Günthner, S., eds., Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 27–56.Google Scholar
Ås, B. (1978). Hersketeknikker [Master suppression techniques]. Kjerringråd, 3: 17–21.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D. (2006). Parallel-opposition-Konstruktionen: Zur Realisierung einer spezifischen Kontrastkonstruktion. In Günthner, S. and Imo, W., eds., Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. Berlin: de Gruyter, 153–179.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D. (2009). Contrasting and turn transition: Prosodic projection with parallel-opposition constructions. Journal of Pragmatics, 41: 2271–2294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D. (2014). Dialogism and the emergence of final particles: The case of and. In Günthner, S., Imo, W. and Bücker, J., eds., Grammar and Dialogism. Berlin: de Gruyter, 335–366.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D. (2016). Intonation units revisited: Cesuras in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D. and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2002). On the development of final though: A case of grammaticalisation? In Wischer, I. and Diewald, G., eds., New Perspectives on Grammaticalisation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 345–361.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D. and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2011). Action, prosody and emergent constructions: The case of and. In Auer, P. and Pfänder, S., eds., Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: de Gruyter, 236–292.Google Scholar
Bates, S. A., Kerr, P. Byrne, C. and Stanley, L. (2014). Questions to the Prime Minister: A comparative study of PMQs from Thatcher to Cameron. Parliamentary Affairs, 67: 253–280.Google Scholar
Beard, A. (2000). The Language of Politics. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. (2006). Epistemological positioning and evidentiality in English news discourse: A text-driven approach. Text & Talk, 26 (6): 635–660.Google Scholar
Bergs, A. and Diewald, G. (2008). Introduction: Constructions and language change. In Bergs, A. and Diewald, G., eds., Constructions and Language Change. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 1–22.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1999). A register perspective on grammar and discourse: Variability in the form and use of English complement clauses. Discourse Studies, 1 (2): 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (2003). Compressed noun phrase structures in newspaper discourse: The competing demands of popularization vs. economy. In Aitchison, J. and Lewis, D., eds., New Media Language. New York: Routledge, 169–181.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blackwell, N. L. and Tree, J. E. F. (2012). Social factors affect quotative choice. Journal of Pragmatics, 44: 1150–1162.Google Scholar
Blackwell, N. L., Perlman, M. and Tree, J. E. F. (2015). Quotation as a multimodal construction. Journal of Pragmatics, 81: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., Blondheim, M. and Hacohen, G. (2002). Traditions of dispute: From negotiations of Talmudic texts to the arena of political discourse in the media. Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 1569–1594.Google Scholar
Blyth, C., Recktenwald, S. and Wang, J. (1990). I’m like, ‘Say what ?!’: A new quotative in American oral narrative. American Speech, 65: 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, F. (1911a). Kwakiutl. In Boas, F., ed., Handbook of American Indian Languages. Washington: Government Printing Office, 423–557.Google Scholar
Boas, F. (1911b). Introduction. In Boas, F., ed., Handbook of American Indian Languages. Washington: Government Printing Office, 5–83.Google Scholar
Boye, K. (2010). Semantic maps and the identification of cross-linguistic generic categories: Evidentiality and its relation to epistemic modality. Linguistic Discovery, 8 (1): 4–22.Google Scholar
Bromley, C., Curtice, J. and Seyd, B. (2004). Is Britain Facing a Crisis of Democracy? Technical Report, Constitution Unit, School of Public Policy. London: University College London.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, I. 2002. He goes and I’m like: The new quotatives re-visited. Internet Proceedings of the University of Edinburgh Postgraduate Conference. Online. www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~pgc/archive/2002/proc02/buchstaller02.pdfGoogle Scholar
Buchstaller, I. (2014). Quotatives: New trends and sociolinguistic implications. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, I. (2017). Reported speech. In Barron, A., Grundy, P. and Yueguo, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Routledge, 399–417.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, I. and van Alphen, I., eds. (2012). Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bull, P. and Fetzer, A. (2006). Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of forms of address in political interviews. Text & Talk, 26 (1): 3–37.Google Scholar
Bull, P. and Waddle, M. (2019). ‘Let me now answer, very directly, Marie’s question’: The impact of quoting members of the public in Prime Minister’s Questions. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 7 (1): 56–78.Google Scholar
Bull, P. and Wells, P.. (2012). Adversarial discourse in Prime Minister’s Questions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31 (1): 30–48.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2003). Mechanisms of change in grammaticalisation: The role of frequency. In Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D., eds., The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell, 602–623.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82 (4): 711–733.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2011). Usage-based theory and grammaticalisation. In Narrog, H. and Heine, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 69–78.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representation. In Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 49–69.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. and Eddington, D. (2006). A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82 (2): 323–355.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. and Thompson, S. (1997). Three frequency effects in syntax. In Proceedings of the Twenty-third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 378–388.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. and Pagliuca, W. (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Caffi, C. (2006). Metapragmatics. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, London: Elsevier, 82–88.Google Scholar
Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E. 1997. Varieties of quotation. Mind, 106: 429–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2014). Analysing Political Speeches. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Tannen, D., ed., Spoken and Written Language: Exploring orality and literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 35–53.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Chafe, W. L. and Nichols, J., eds., Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 261–312.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. and Nichols, J., eds. (1986). Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chilton, P. (2007). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Gerrig, R. J. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66, 764–805.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E. (1992). Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news interview discourse. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 163–198.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E. (1993). Booing: The anatomy of a disaffilitive response. American Sociological Review, 58: 110–130.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E. and Heritage, J. (2002a). Questioning presidents: Journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication, 52: 749–777.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E. and Heritage, J. (2002b). The News Interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E., Elliott, M. Heritage, J. and McDonald, L. L. (2006). Historical trends in questioning presidents 1953–2000. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36: 561–583.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E., Heritage, J., Elliot, M. and McDonald, L. (2007). When does the watchdog bark? Conditions of aggressive questioning in presidential news conferences. American Sociological Review, 72: 23–41.Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2006). Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10 (5): 569–595.Google Scholar
Coe, J. and Kelly, R. (2009). Prime Minister’s Questions, House of Commons Library.Google Scholar
Collins, P. (1995). The indirect object construction in English: An informational approach. Linguistics, 33: 35–49.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conboy, M. (2003). Parochialising the global language and the British tabloid press. In Aitchison, J. and Lewis, D. M., eds., New Media Language. London: Routledge, 45–54.Google Scholar
Connal, L. R. (1996). Comparison. In Enos, T., ed., Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication from ancient times to the information age. New York and London: Garland, 145–146.Google Scholar
Cornillie, B. (2009). Evidentiality an epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language, 16 (1): 44–62.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1986). An Introduction to English Prosody. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1993). English Speech Rhythm: Form and function in everyday verbal interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1999). Coherent voicing: On prosody in conversational reported speech. In Bublitz, W. and Lenk, U., eds., Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to create it and how to scribe it. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 11–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2004). Prosody and sequence organisation: The case of new beginnings. In Sound Patterns in Interaction. Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Ford, C. E., eds., Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 335–376.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2007). Assessing and accounting. In Holt, E. and Clift, R., eds., Reporting Talk: Reported speech in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 81–119.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. 2011. Grammaticalisation and conversation. In Narrog, H. and Heine, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 424–437.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Barth-Weingarten, D. (2011). A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2 [An English translation and adaptation of Margaret Selting et al.: Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2]. Gesprächsforschung – Onlinezeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 12: 1–51.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Selting, M. (1996). Towards an interactional perspective on prosody and a prosodic perspective on interaction. In Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Selting, M., eds., Prosody in Conversation: Interactional studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 11–56.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Selting, M. (2001). Introducing interactional linguistics. In Selting, M. and Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–22.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Thompson, S. A. (2006). ‘You know it’s funny’: Eine Neubetrachtung der ‘Extraposition’ im Englischen. In Günthner, S. and Imo, W., eds., Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. Berlin: de Gruyter, 23–58.Google Scholar
de Haan, F. (1999). Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 18: 83–101.Google Scholar
de Haan, F. (2012). Evidentiality and mirativity. In Binnick, R. I., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1020–1046.Google Scholar
Dehé, N. (2009). Clausal parentheticals, intonational phrasing, and prosodic theory. Journal of Linguistics, 45 (3): 569–615.Google Scholar
Dehé, N. and Kavalova, Y. (2007). Parentheticals: An introduction. In Dehé, N. and Kavalova, Y., eds., Parentheticals. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–22.Google Scholar
Dehé, N. and Wichmann, A. (2010). The multifunctionality of epistemic parentheticals in discourse: Prosodic cues to the semantic-pragmatic boundary. Functions of Language, 17 (1): 1–28.Google Scholar
Deutscher, G. (2011). The grammaticalisation of quotatives. In Narrog, H. and Heine, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalisation. New York: Oxford University Press, 646–655.Google Scholar
Dickerson, P. (1997). ‘It’s not just me who’s saying this …’: The deployment of cited others in televised political discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36 (1): 33–48.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. (2011). Grammaticalisation and pragmaticalisation. In Heine, B. and Narrog, H., eds., Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 450–461.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. and Smirnova, E. (2010a). Evidentiality in German: Linguistic realisation and regularities in grammaticalisation. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. and Smirnova, E., eds. (2010b). Linguistic Realisation of Evidentiality in European Languages. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (1986). Self-evidence and ritual speech. In Chafe, W. L. and Nichols, J., eds., Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 313–336.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. In Englebretson, R., ed., Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 139–182.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (2006). Communities of practice. In Brown, K., ed., Enyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. New York: Elsevier, 683–685.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. and McConnell, S. (1992a). Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 461–490.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. and McConnell, S. (1992b). Communities of practice: Where language, gender, and power all live. In Hall, K., Bucholtz, M. and Moonwomon, B., eds., Locating Power. Proceedings of the 1992 Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group, 89–99.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. and Wenger, E.. (2005). Communities of practice in sociolinguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9 (4): 582–589.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. (2000). Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33 (4): 347–373.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2013). Reference in conversation. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 433–454.Google Scholar
Erickson, F. (1992). They know all the lines: Rhythmic organisation and contextualisation in a conversational listing routine. In Auer, P. and Di Luzio, A., eds., The Contextualisation of Language. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 365–397.Google Scholar
Erskine May, . (1989). Erskine May’s Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 21st edn, Boulton, C. J., ed., London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Ernst, T. (2009). Speaker-oriented adverbs. Nat Lang Linguist Theory, 27: 497–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2014a). Foregrounding evidentiality in (English) academic discourse: Patterned co-occurrences of the sensory perception verbs seem and appear. Special issue ‘Evidentiality in Discourse’. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11 (3): 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2014b). We and I, and you and them: people, power and solidarity. In Pishwa, H. and Schulze, R., eds., The Expression of Inequality in Interaction: Power, dominance and status. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2014c). ‘Judge us on what we do’: The strategic use of collective we in political discourse. In Pavlidou, T.-S., ed., Constructing Collectivity: ‘We’ across languages and contexts. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2014d). I think, I mean and I believe in political discourse. Collocates, functions and distribution. Functions of Language, 21 (1): 67–94.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2015). ‘When you came into office you said that your government would be different’: Forms and functions of quotations in mediated political discourse. In Fetzer, A., Weizman, E. and Berlin, L. N., eds., Dynamics of Political Discourse: forms and functions of follow-ups. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 245–273.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2020). ‘And I quote’: Forms and functions of quotations in Prime Minister’s questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 157: 89–100.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. and Bull, P. (2012). Doing leadership in political speech: Semantic processes and pragmatic inferences. Discourse and Society, 23 (2): 127–144.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. and Bull, P.. (2019). Quoting ordinary people in Prime Minister’s Questions 1. In Fetzer, A. and Weizman, E., eds. The Construction of ‘Ordinariness’ across Media Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 73–101.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. and Oishi, E., eds. (2014). Evidentiality in discourse. Intercultural Pragmatics, Special issue. 11 (3).Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. and Reber, E. (2015). Quoting in political discourse: Professional talk meets ordinary postings. In Arendholz, J., Kirner, M. and Bublitz, W., eds., Quoting Now and Then. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter Mouton, 97–124.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. and Weizman, E. (2018). ‘What I would say to John and everyone like John is …’: The construction of ordinariness through quotations in mediated political discourse. Discourse & Society, 29 (5): 1–19.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P. and O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64 (3): 501–538.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. (2007). The development of English parentheticals: A case of grammaticalisation? In Smit, U., Dollinger, S., Hüttner, J., Kaltenböck, G. and Lutzky, U., eds., Tracing English through Time: Explorations in language variation. Vienna: Braumüller, 99–114.Google Scholar
Ford, C. E. (2000). The treatment of contrasts in interaction. In Kortmann, B. and Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Cause, Condition, Concession and Contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter Mouton, 283–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. (1987). Discourse Structure and Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, B. A. (2001). Evidentiality: Authority, responsibility, and entitlement in English conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 11 (2): 167–192.Google Scholar
Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A. (2007). Relative clauses in English conversation: Relativisers, frequency and the notion of construction. Studies in Language, 31: 293–326.Google Scholar
Fried, M. (2013). Principles of constructional change. In Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 419–437.Google Scholar
Galatolo, R. (2007). Active voicing in court. In Holt, E. and Clift, R., eds., Reporting Talk: Reported speech in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 195–220.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1956). Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology, 61(5): 420–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerhardt, C. (2006). Moving closer to the audience: Watching football on television. Special issue ‘Linguistics and Media Discourse.’ Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 19: 125–148.Google Scholar
Gerhardt, C. and Reber, E. (2019). Embodied activities. In Reber, E. and Gerhardt, C., eds., Embodied Activities in Face-to-face and Mediated Settings: Social encounters in time and space. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 3–27.Google Scholar
Giddings, P. and Irwin, H. (2005). Objects and questions. In Giddings, P., ed., The Future of Parliament: Issues for a new century. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 72–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1979). Footing. Semiotica, 25(1/2): 1–29.Google Scholar
Good, J. S. (2015). Reported and enacted actions: Moving beyond reported speech and related concepts. Discourse Studies, 17: 663–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2007). Interactive footing. In Holt, E. and Clift, R., eds., Reporting Talk: Reported speech in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 16–46.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. (1990). He-Said-She-Said: Talk as social organisation among black children. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, H. (2001). Questions and strategic orientation in verbal conflict sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 1815–1857.Google Scholar
Günthner, S. (1997). Direkte und indirekte Rede in Alltagsgesprächen: Zur Interaktion von Syntax und Prosodie in der Redewiedergabe. In Schlobinski, P., ed., Syntax des gesprochenen Deutsch. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 227–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S. (2000). Zwischen direkter und indirekter Rede. Formen der Redewiedergabe in Alltagsgesprächen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 28 (1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Günthner, S. (2011a). Between emergence and sedimentation: Projecting constructions in German interactions. In Auer, P. and Pfänder, S., eds., Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 156–185.Google Scholar
Günthner, S. (2011b). N be that-constructions in everyday German conversation: A reanalysis of ‘die Sache ist/das Ding ist’ (‘the thing is’)-clauses as projector phrases. In Laury, R. and Suzuki, R., eds., Subordination in Conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 11–36.Google Scholar
Günthner, S. (2011c). The construction of emotional involvement in everyday German narratives – interactive uses of ‘dense constructions’. Pragmatics, 21 (4): 573–592.Google Scholar
Hall, E. T. (1969). The Hidden Dimension. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Hall-Lew, L., Friskney, R. and Scobbie, M., J. (2017). Accommodation or political identity: Scottish members of the UK Parliament. Language Variation and Change, 29 (3): 341–363.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F. 2012. Evidentiality in social interaction. Special issue ‘Evidentiality in Interaction.’ Pragmatics and Society, 3 (2): 169–180.Google Scholar
Hara, Y. (2008). Evidentiality of discourse items and because-clauses. Journal of Semantics, 25: 229–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, J. (2006). An acoustic analysis of ‘happy-tensing’ in the Queen’s Christmas broadcasts. Journal of Phonetics, 34: 439–457.Google Scholar
Harrington, J. (2007). Evidence for a relationship between synchronic variability and diachronic change in the Queen’s annual Christmas broadcasts. In Cole, J. and Hualde, J., eds., Laboratory Phonology 9. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter Mouton, 125–143.Google Scholar
Harrington, J., Palethorpe, S. and Watson, C. (2000a). Does the Queen speak the Queen’s English? Nature, 408: 927–928.Google Scholar
Harrington, J., Palethorpe, S. and Watson, C. (2000b). Monophthongal vowel changes in Received Pronunciation: An acoustic analysis of the Queen’s Christmas broadcasts. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 30 (1/2): 63–78.Google Scholar
Harrington, J., Palethorpe, S., and Watson, C. (2005). Deepening or lessening the divide between diphthongs? An analysis of the Queen’s annual Christmas broadcasts. In Hardcastle, W. J. and Beck, J., eds., A Figure of Speech: Festschrift for John Laver. London and Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 227–261.Google Scholar
Harris, S. (2001). Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse and Society, 12 (4): 451–472.Google Scholar
Heine, B. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalisation. In Wischer, I. and Diewald, G., eds., New Reflections on Grammaticalisation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 83–101.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1985). Analysing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an ‘overhearing’ audience. In van Dijk, T., ed., Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 3. London: Academic Press, 95–117.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2013). Epistemics in conversation. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell, 370–394.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2015). Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 88: 88–104.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Clayman, S. E. (2013). The changing tenor of questioning over time: Tracking a question form across US presidential news conferences. 1953–2000. Journalism Practice, 7 (4): 481–501.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Greatbatch, D. (1986). Generating applause: A study of rhetoric and response at party political conferences. American Journal of Sociology, 92 (1): 110–157.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68 (1): 15–38.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Raymond, G. (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In de Ruiter, J. P., ed., Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 179–192.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Sorjonen, M.-L. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society, 23: 1–29.Google Scholar
Hjarvard, S. (2008). The mediatisation of society: A theory of the media as agents of social and cultural change. Nordicom Review, 29 (2): 105–134.Google Scholar
Holland, E., Wolf, E. B., Looser, C. and Cuddy, A. 2017. Visual attention to powerful postures: People avert their gaze from nonverbal dominance displays. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68: 60–67.Google Scholar
Holly, W. (1989). Credibility and political language. In Wodak, R., ed., Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in political discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 115–135.Google Scholar
Holt, E. (1996). Reporting on talk: The use of direct reported speech in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29 (3): 219–245.Google Scholar
Holt, E. (2009). Reported speech. In D’hondt, S., Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 190–205.Google Scholar
Holt, E. and Clift, R. (2010). Reporting Talk: Reported speech in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 13: 139–157.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (1998). Emergent grammar. In Tomasello, M., ed., The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and functional approaches to linguistic structure. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum, 154–175.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1991). On some principles of grammaticisation. In Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B., eds., Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. I. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 17–35.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (2001). Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: prototype or family resemblance? In Pütz, M., Niemeier, S. and Dirven, R., eds., Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 109–129.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. and Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56: 251–299.Google Scholar
House of Commons Information Office. (2010). Broadcasting Proceedings of the House, Parliamentary Copyright August 2010.Google Scholar
House of Commons Information Office. (2012). Visitors to the Gallery, Information leaflet, December 2012.Google Scholar
House of Commons Information Office. (2013). Parliamentary Questions, Parliamentary Copyright March 2013.Google Scholar
Hundt, M. and Mair, C. (1999). ‘Agile’ and ‘uptight’ genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 4: 221–242.Google Scholar
Ilie, C. (2010a). Identity co-construction in parliamentary discourse practices. In Ilie, C., ed., European Parliaments under Scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 57–78.Google Scholar
Ilie, C. (2010b). Strategic uses of parliamentary forms of address: The case of the UK Parliament and the Swedish riksdag. Journal of Pragmatics, 42: 885–911.Google Scholar
Ilie, C. (2013). Gendering confrontational rhetoric: Discursive disorder in the British and Swedish parliaments. Democratization, 20 (3): 501–521.Google Scholar
Ilie, C. (2015). Follow-ups as multifunctional questioning and answering strategies in Prime Minister’s Questions. In Fetzer, A., Weizman, E. and Berlin, L. N., eds., Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and functions of follow-ups. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 195–218.Google Scholar
Imo, W. (2007). Construction Grammar und Gesprochene-Sprache-Forschung: Konstruktionen mit zehn matrixsatzfähigen Verben im gesprochenen Deutsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Imo, W. (2009). Inszenierungen eigener und fremder Rede durch Konstruktionen mit dem Verb sagen. In Buss, M., Habscheid, S., Jautz, S. and Liedtke, F., eds., Theatralität des sprachlichen Handelns. Paderborn: Fink, 319–336.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1990 [1957]). Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In Waugh, L. and Monville-Burston, M., eds., On Language: Roman Jakobson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Russian Language Project, 386–392.Google Scholar
Janney, R. (1999). The whole truth and nothing but the truth: Linguistic avoidance in the O.J. Simpson transcripts. In Falkner, W. and Schmid, H.-J., eds., Words, Lexemes, Concepts – Approaches to the Lexicon. Studies in honour of Leonhard Lipka. Tübingen: Narr, 259–272.Google Scholar
Jansen, W., Gregory, M. L. and Brenier, J. M. (2001). Prosodic correlates of directly reported speech: Evidence from conversational speech. Conference paper. Prosody in Speech Recognition and Understanding. Red Bank, NJ, 22–24 October. Online. https://bit.ly/3uMTYq7Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1990). List construction as a task and interactional resource. In Psathas, G., ed., Interactional Competence. New York: University Press of America, 63–92.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. (1987). ‘He says … so I said’: Verb tense alternation and narrative depictions of authority in American English. Linguistics, 25, 33–52.Google Scholar
Jones, G. W. (1972/1973). The prime minister and parliamentary questions. Parliamentary Affairs, 26: 260–273.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (1986). News Interviews: A pragmalinguistic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (1992). Social Stylistics: Syntactic variation in British newspapers. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (1996). News actor labelling in British newspapers. Text, 16 (3): 373–390.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Kopaczyk, J. (2013). Communities of practice as a locus of language change. In Kopaczyk, J. and Jucker, A. H., eds., Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 1–16.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Landert, D. (2015). Historical pragmatics and early speech recordings: Diachronic developments in turn-taking and narrative structure in radio talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 79: 22–39.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I Think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2008). Conjunction and sequenced actions: The Estonian complementizer and evidential particle et. In Laury, R., ed., Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 125–152.Google Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2010). Bodily quoting in dance correction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43 (4): 401–426.Google Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2013). The interdependence of bodily demonstrations and clausal syntax. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klewitz, G. and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1999). QUOTE – UNQUOTE? The role of prosody in the contextualisation of reported speech sequences. Pragmatics, 9 (4): 459–485.Google Scholar
Koch, P. and Oesterreicher, W. 2007. Schriftlichkeit und kommunikative Distanz. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 35 (3): 346–375.Google Scholar
Komter, M. (2013). Conversation Analysis in the courtroom. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds, The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell: 612–629.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1981). What can be learned about change in progress from synchronic description? In Sankoff, D. and Cedergren, H., eds., Variation Omnibus. Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research, 177–201.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. 1: Internal Factors. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors We Live By. London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lawson, P. A., Citron, D. M., Tyrrell, K. L. and Finegold, S. M. (2016). Reclassification of Clostridium difficile as Clostridioides difficile (Hall and O’Toole 1935) Prévot 1938. Anaerobe, 40: 95–99.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. Meaning and the English Verb, 4th edn, Harlow: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C. and Smith, N. (2009). Change in Contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 103–130.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (2005). The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V. and McEnery, T. (2017). The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22 (3): 319–344.Google Scholar
Lovenduski, J. (2014a). Prime Minister’s Questions underpins an expectation that politics is an activity best performed by men. Democratic Audit, 16 March. Online. http://bit.ly/3dYWaF7Google Scholar
Lovenduski, J. (2014b). The institutionalisation of sexism in politics. Political Insight, 5: 16–19.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic Semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, C. (2006). Twentieth-Century English: History, variation, and standardisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mair, C. (2013). Using ‘small’ corpora of written and spoken English to document ongoing grammatical change: The case of specificational clefts in 20th century English. In Krug, M. and Schlüter, J., eds., Research Methods in Language Variation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 181–194.Google Scholar
Mair, C. and Leech, G. (2006). Current change in English syntax. In Aarts, B. and MacMahon, A., eds., The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 318–342.Google Scholar
Mann, W. C. and Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Towards a functional theory of text organisation. Text, 8 (3): 243–281.Google Scholar
Mathis, T. and Yule, G. (1994). Zero quotatives. Discourse Processes, 18 (1): 63–76.Google Scholar
Mayes, P. D. (1990). Quotation in spoken English. Studies in Language, 14: 325–363.Google Scholar
Mazeland, H. (2003). A politician’s sociology: US Vice President Gore’s categorisation of the participants in the Warsaw Uprising. In Ensink, T. and Sauer, C., eds., The Art of Commemoration: Fifty years after the Warsaw uprising. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 95–115.Google Scholar
Mazeland, H. (2007). Parenthetical sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 39 (10): 1816–1869.Google Scholar
Mollin, S. (2007). The Hansard hazard: Gauging the accuracy of British parliamentary transcripts. Corpora, 2 (2): 187–210.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2019a). Conventions for multimodal transcription. Version 3.0.1. www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodal-transcriptionGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2019b). Practices for showing, looking, and videorecording: The interactional establishment of a common focus of attention. In Reber, E. and Gerhardt, C., eds., Embodied Activities in Face-to-face and Mediated Settings: Social encounters in time and space. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 63–104.Google Scholar
Mulder, J. and Thompson, S. A. (2008). The grammaticalization of but as a final particle in English conversation. In Laury, R., ed., Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 179–204.Google Scholar
Munro, P. (1982). On the transitivity of ‘say’ verbs. In Hopper, P. and Thompson, S., eds., Studies in Transitivity. New York: Academic Press, 301–318.Google Scholar
Mushin, I. (2001). Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance: Narrative retelling. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Niemelä, M. (2005). Voiced direct reported speech in conversational storytelling: Sequential patterns of stance taking. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 18: 197–221.Google Scholar
Noonan, M. (1985). Complementation. In Shopen, T., ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 42–139.Google Scholar
Norton, P. (1996). Calling time on questions. Parliamentary Review, June.Google Scholar
Nuckolls, J. and Michael, L., eds. (2012). Evidentiality in interaction. Special issue. Pragmatics and Society, 3 (2).Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. 2001. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualisation: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Park, Y. (2009). Interaction between grammar and multimodal resources: Quoting different characters in Korean multiparty conversation. Discourse Studies, 11 (1): 79–104.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9 (2/3): 219–229.Google Scholar
Portner, P. (2009). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. (2000) The voice of authority: The local accomplishment of authoritative discourse in live news broadcasts. Discourse Studies, 2 (3): 354–379.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organisation: Yes/no type interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68: 939–967.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. and Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relationships: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35 (5): 677–705.Google Scholar
Reber, E. (2012). Evidential positioning in follow-ups in news interviews. In Fetzer, A., Weizman, E. and Reber, E., eds., Proceedings of the EFS Strategic Workshop on Follow-ups across Discourse Domains: A cross-cultural exploration of their forms and functions, Würzburg (Germany), 31 May–2 June 2012. Würzburg: Universität Würzburg, 205–220. URN: nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-71656Google Scholar
Reber, E. (2014a). Constructing evidence at Prime Minister’s Question Time: An analysis of the grammar, semantics and pragmatics of the verb see. Special issue ‘Evidentiality in Discourse’. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11 (3): 357–387.Google Scholar
Reber, E. (2014b). Follow-ups in parliamentary request sequences, Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
Reber, E. (2014c). Obama said it: Quoting as evidential strategy in online discussion forums. Special issue ‘Certainty and Uncertainty in Dialogue’ Language and Dialogue, 4 (1): 76–92.Google Scholar
Reber, E. (2019). Punch and Judy politics? Embodying challenging courses of action in parliament. In Reber, E. and Gerhardt, C., eds., Embodied Activities in Face-to-face and Mediated Settings: Social encounters in time and space. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 255–297.Google Scholar
Reber, E. (2020a). Zur Rolle von Phonetik und Prosodie in CAN I X-, LEˀ ME X-, und LEMME X-Konstruktionen. In Imo, W. and Lanwer, J. P., eds., Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Berlin: de Gruyter, 135–165.Google Scholar
Reber, E. (2020b). Visuo-material performances: ‘Literalised’ quotations in Prime Minister’s Questions. Special issue ‘Linguistic recycling.’ AILA Review, 33: 176–203.Google Scholar
Reber, E. (2021). Calibrating syntax, prosody and gaze in parliamentary questions. In Kupetz, M. and Kern, F., eds., Prosodie in der multimodalen Welt. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 239-266.Google Scholar
Reynolds, E. (2011a). Epistemics in conflict: Enticing a challengeable in protest arguments. Proceedings of the 106th American Sociological Association – Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis stream.Google Scholar
Reynolds, E. (2011b). Enticing a challengeable in arguments: Sequence, epistemics and preference organisation. Pragmatics, 21 (3): 411–430.Google Scholar
Reynolds, E. (2013). Enticing a challengeable: Instituting social order as a practice of public conflict. PhD dissertation. University of Queensland.Google Scholar
Reynolds, E. (2015). How participants in arguments challenge the normative position of an opponent. Discourse Studies, 7 (3): 299–316.Google Scholar
Robles, J. S. (2011). Doing disagreement in the House of Lords: ‘Talking around the issue’ as a context-appropriate argumentative strategy. Discourse and Communication, 5 (2): 147–168.Google Scholar
Roth, A. L. (2005). ‘Pop quizzes’ on the campaign trail: Journalists, candidates, and the limits of questioning. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 10 (2): 28–46.Google Scholar
Rumsey, A. (1992). Wording, meaning, and linguistic ideology. American Anthropologist, 92: 346–361.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E. A. (2007 [1979]). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Enfield, N. J. and Stivers, T., eds., Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 23–28.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50: 696–735.Google Scholar
Sato, I. L. (2014). Social relations and institutional structures in modern American political campaigns, Dissertation. University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70 (6): 1075–1095.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In Sudnow, D. N., ed., Studies in Social Interaction. New York: MacMillan, The Free Press, 75–119.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In Fox, B., ed., Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 437–485.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Turn organisation: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A. and Thompson, S. A., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 52–133.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organisation in Interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schubiger, M. (1958). English Intonation: Its form and function. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Sealey, A. and Bates, S. (2016). Prime ministerial self-reported actions in Prime Minister’s Questions 1979–2010: A corpus-assisted analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 104: 18–31.Google Scholar
Seggewiß, F. (2013). Current changes in the English modals: A corpus-based analysis of present-day spoken English. Doctoral dissertation. University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
Selting, M. (1994). Emphatic speech style: With special focus on the prosodic signalling of heightened emotive involvement in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 22: 375–408.Google Scholar
Selting, M. (2007). Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource. Special issue ‘Diversity and continuity in conversation analysis.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 39: 483–526.Google Scholar
Shaw, S. (2000). Language, gender and floor apportionment in political debates. Discourse Society, 11: 401–418.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2006). Coordinating gesture, gaze and talk in re-enactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39 (4): 377–409.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2012). ‘Who knows best?’ Evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry in conversation. Special issue ‘Evidentiality in interaction.’ Pragmatics and Society, 3 (2): 294–320.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2013). Basic conversation analytic methods. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 77–99.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Slembrouck, S. (1992). The parliamentary Hansard ‘verbatim’ report: The written construction of spoken discourse. Language and Literature, 1 (2): 101–119.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2011). Morality and question design: ‘Of course’ as contesting a presupposition of askability. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L. and Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowing in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 82–106.Google Scholar
Stivers, T., Mondada, L. and Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L. and Steensig, J., eds. The Morality of Knowing in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–24.Google Scholar
Stec, K, Huiskes, M. and Redeker, G. (2016). Multimodal quotation: Role shift practices in spoken narratives. Journal of Pragmatics, 104: 1–17.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (1993). Gesture as communication I: Its coordination with gaze and speech. Communication Monographs, 60 (4): 275–299.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (2008). Gesture in political communication: A case study of the Democratic presidential candidates during the 2004 primary campaign. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41 (2): 154–186.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. 2007. Talking Voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. 2002. ‘Object complements’ and conversation towards a realistic account. Studies in Language, 26 (1): 125–164.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. and Hopper, P. J. (2001). Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In Bybee, J. L. and Hopper, P. J., eds., Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 27–60.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. and Koide, Y. (1987). Iconicity and ‘indirect objects’ in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 11: 399–406.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. and Mulac, A. (1991a). A quantitative perspective on the grammaticisation of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott, E. and Heine, B., eds, Approaches to Grammaticalisation, Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 313–339.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. and Mulac, A. 1991b. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics, 15: 237–251.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2010). Grammaticalisation. In Luraghi, S. and Bubenik, V., eds., Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics. London: Continuum Press, 269–283.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. (2010). Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalisation: How do they intersect? In Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G., eds., Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 19–44.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., and Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Travis, C. E. and Lindstrom, A. M. (2016). Different registers, different grammars? Subject expression in English conversation and narrative. Language Variation and Change, 28 (1): 103–128.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (2014). Discourse and Knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Varantola, K. (1984). An aspect of term-formation in engineering English. In Ringbom, H. and Rissanen, M., eds., Proceedings from the Second Nordic Conference for English Studies. Hanasaari/Hanaholmen, Finland, 19–21 May 1983. Åbo: Åbo Akademie, 94–102.Google Scholar
Vice, J. and Farrell, S. (n.d). The History of Hansard, House of Lords: Hansard and the House of Lords Library.Google Scholar
Vincze, L., Bongelli, R., Riccioni, I. and Zuczkowski, A. (2016). Ignorance-unmasking questions in the Royal-Sarkozy presidential debate: A resource to claim epistemic authority. Discourse Studies, 18 (4): 430–453.Google Scholar
Vološhinov, V. N. (1986). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Waddle, M. T., Bull, P. and Böhnke, J. R. (2019). ‘He is just the nowhere man of British politics’: Personal attacks in Prime Minister’s Questions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38 (1): 61–84.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. and Herzog, M. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Y., eds., Directions for Historical Linguistics. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 95–195.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whitt, R. J. (2010). Evidentiality and Perception Verbs in English and German. Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. (1990). Politically Speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wooffitt, R. and Aliston, S. (2008). Participation, procedure and accountability: ‘You said’ speech markers in negotiating reports of ambiguous phenomena. Discourse Studies, 10 (3): 407–427.Google Scholar
Vandelanotte, L. and Davidse, K. (2009). The emergence and structure of be like and related quotatives: a constructional account. Cognitive Linguistics, 20 (4): 777–807.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Elisabeth Reber
  • Book: Quoting in Parliamentary Question Time
  • Online publication: 27 August 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108869898.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Elisabeth Reber
  • Book: Quoting in Parliamentary Question Time
  • Online publication: 27 August 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108869898.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Elisabeth Reber
  • Book: Quoting in Parliamentary Question Time
  • Online publication: 27 August 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108869898.012
Available formats
×