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-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T16:59:35.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2024

Daniela Landert
Daniela Landert
Affiliation:
Universität Heidelberg
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
Methods in Historical Corpus Pragmatics
Epistemic Stance in Early Modern English
 , pp. 296 - 311
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

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

Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think – an English modal particle. In Swan, Toril and Westvik, Olaf Jansen (eds.), Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and comparative perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1–47.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 2009. Seem and evidentiality. Functions of Language 16(1), 63–88.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 2013. Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 2018. Corpus pragmatics: From form to function. In Jucker, Andreas H., Schneider, Klaus P., and Bublitz, Wolfram (eds.), Methods in Pragmatics. Handbooks of Pragmatics 10, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 555–86.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin and Andersen, Gisle. 2011. Introducing the pragmatics of society. In Andersen, Gisle and Aijmer, Karin (eds.), Pragmatics of Society. Handbooks of Pragmatics 5, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 1–27.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin and Rühlemann, Christoph (eds.). 2014. Corpus Pragmatics: A handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonso-Almeida, Francisco and Mele-Marrero, Margarita. 2014. Stancetaking in seventeenth-century prefaces on obstetrics. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 15(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Gisle. 2011. Corpus-based pragmatics I: qualitative studies. In Bublitz, Wolfram and Norrick, Neal R. (eds.), Foundations of Pragmatics. Handbook of Pragmatics Series 1, Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 587–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, Dawn. 2010. The historical courtroom: A diachronic investigation of English courtroom practice. In Coulthard, Malcolm and Johnson, Alison (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. New York: Routledge. 185–98.Google Scholar
Archer, Dawn and Gillings, Mathew. 2020. Depictions of deception: A corpus-based analysis of five Shakespearean characters. Language and Literature 29(3), 1–29.Google Scholar
Attardo, Salvatore. 2008. Semantics and pragmatics of humor. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(6), 1203–15.Google Scholar
Beer, Barrett L. 2009. Seymour, Edward, duke of Somerset [known as Protector Somerset]. In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/25159.Google Scholar
Bernard, G. W. 2015. Seymour, Thomas, Baron Seymour of Sudeley. In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/25181.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2004a. Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: A cross-register comparison. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5(1), 107–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2004b. Modal use across registers and time. In Curzan, Anne and Emmons, Kimberly (eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language II: Unfolding conventions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 189–216.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9(1), 93–124.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Boggel, Sandra. 2004. Nou onderstand wel: Metacommunicative directives in Middle English and Early Modern English religious texts. In Honegger, Thomas (ed.), Riddles, Knights and Cross-Dressing Saints: Essays on Medieval English language and literature. Bern: Peter Lang. 193–222.Google Scholar
Boggel, Sandra. 2009. Metadiscourse in Middle English and Early Modern English Religious Texts: A corpus-based study. English Corpus Linguistics 10, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper. 2016. The expression of epistemic modality. In Nuyts, Jan and van der Auwera, Johan (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood. Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 117–40.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J.. 2008. The Comment Clause in English. Studies in English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J.. 2012. Historical pragmatics and corpus linguistics: Problems and strategies. In Kytö, Merja (ed.), English Corpus Linguistics: Crossing paths. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. 101–31.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J.. 2015. Historical discourse analysis. In Tannen, Deborah, Hamilton, Heidi E., and Schiffrin, Deborah (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 2nd ed., 222–43.Google Scholar
Bromhead, Helen. 2009. The Reign of Truth and Faith: Epistemic expressions in 16th and 17th century English. Topics in English Linguistics 62, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brown, Nancy Pollard. 2008. Howard [née Dacre], Anne, countess of Arundel. In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/46907.Google Scholar
Busse, Ulrich and Busse, Beatrix. 2010. Shakespeare. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Historical Pragmatics. Handbooks of Pragmatics 8, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 247–81.Google Scholar
Cecconi, Elisabetta. 2010. Witness narratives in 17th century trial proceedings: A case study of historical courtroom public discourse. In Brownlees, Nicholas, Lungo, Gabriella Del, and Denton, John (eds.), The Language of Public and Private Communication in a Historical Perspective. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 245–62.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. and Nichols, Johanna (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Advances in Discourse Processes 20, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2000. Multi-word Verbs in Early Modern English: A corpus-based study. Language and Computers 32, Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2003. ‘Life Is Ruled and Governed by Opinion’: The Lampeter Corpus of Early Modern English Tracts. Manual of Information. 2nd ed. URL http://khnt.aksis.uib.no/icame/manuals/LAMPETER/LC-manual.pdf.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2005. Questions in Early Modern English pamphlets. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6(1), 133–68.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2010. News discourse. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Historical Pragmatics. Handbooks of Pragmatics 8, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 587–620.Google Scholar
Collinson, Patrick. 2012. Elizabeth I. In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/8636.Google Scholar
Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo and Calle-Martín, Javier. 2015. Zero that-clauses in the history of English: A historical sociolinguistic approach (1424–1681). Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 1(1), 57–86.Google Scholar
Conrad, Susan and Biber, Douglas. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Hunston, Susan and Thompson, Geoff (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. 56–73.Google Scholar
Corbett, Edward P. J. 1990. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd ed.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2010. Historical sociopragmatics. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Historical Pragmatics. Handbooks of Pragmatics 8, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 69–94.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. (ed.). 2011. Historical Sociopragmatics. Benjamins Current Topics 31, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan and Archer, Dawn. 2008. Requests and directness in Early Modern English trial proceedings and play texts, 1640–1760. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Speech Acts in the History of English. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 176, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 45–84.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan and Kytö, Merja. 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dendale, Patrick and Tasmowski, Liliane. 2001. Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3), 339–48.Google Scholar
Dossena, Marina. 2012. ‘I write you these few lines’: Metacommunication and pragmatics in nineteenth-century Scottish emigrants’ letters. In Busse, Ulrich and Hübler, Axel (eds.), Investigations into the Meta-Communicative Lexicon of English: A contribution to historical pragmatics. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 220, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Englebretson, Robert (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 164, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 139–82.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. and Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2012. Taking a stance on emotion: Affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text and Talk 32(4), 433–51.Google Scholar
Dynel, Marta. 2011. Joker in the pack: Towards determining the status of humorous framing in conversations. In Dynel, Marta (ed.), The Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 217–41.Google Scholar
Englebretson, Robert. 2007. Stancetaking in discourse: An introduction. In: Englebretson, Robert (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 164, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1–25.Google Scholar
Faller, Martina T. 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. URL http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/martina.t.faller/documents/Thesis-A4.pdf.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2002. ‘Put bluntly, you have something of a credibility problem’. Sincerity and credibility in political interviews. In Chilton, Paul A. and Schäffner, Christine (eds.), Politics as Text and Talk: Analytical approaches to political discourse. Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 4, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 173–201.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2012. Contexts in interaction: Relating pragmatic wastebaskets. In Finkbeiner, Rita, Meibauer, Jörg, and Schumacher, Petra B. (eds.), What Is a Context? Linguistic approaches and challenges. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 105–28.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2014. I think, I mean and I believe in political discourse: Collocates, functions and distribution. Functions of Language 21(1), 67–94.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2017. Context. In Huang, Yan (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 259–78.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita and Oishi, Etsuko. 2014. Evidentiality in discourse. Intercultural Pragmatics 11(3), 321–32.Google Scholar
Finegan, Edward. 1995. Subjectivity and subjectivisation: An introduction. In Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–15.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2002. The Familiar Letter in Early Modern English: A pragmatic approach. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 95, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2003. The grammar of stance in early eighteenth-century English epistolary language. In Leistyna, Pepi and Meyer, Charles F. (eds.), Corpus Analysis: Language structure and language use. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. 107–31.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2004. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the historical construction of interlocutor stance: From stance markers to discourse markers. Discourse Studies 6(4), 427–48.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2010. Literary discourse. In: Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Historical Pragmatics. Handbooks of Pragmatics 8, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 679–704.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2012. Sociability: Conversation and the performance of friendship in early eighteenth-century letters. In Busse, Ulrich and Hübler, Axel (eds.), Investigations into the Meta-Communicative Lexicon of English: A contribution to historical pragmatics. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 220, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 21–43.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 2001. Evidentiality: Authority, responsibility, and entitlement in English conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(2), 167–92.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar and Sifianou, Maria. 2019. Politeness and discursive pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 145, 91–101.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas and Holmes, Jasper. 2007. A history of English evidential verbs of appearance. English Language and Linguistics 1(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Goossens, Louis. 1982. ‘Say’: Focus on the message. In Dirven, René, Goossens, Louis, Putseys, Yvan, and Vorlat, Emma (eds.), The Scene of Linguistic Action and Its Perspectivization by Speak, Talk, Say and Tell. Pragmatics & Beyond III: 6, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 85–131.Google Scholar
Gotti, Maurizio. 2012. Managing disputes with civility: On seventeenth-century argumentative discourse. In Busse, Ulrich and Hübler, Axel (eds.), Investigations into the Meta-Communicative Lexicon of English: A contribution to historical pragmatics. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 220, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 89–109.Google Scholar
Gotti, Maurizio, Dossena, Marina, Dury, Richard, Facchinetti, Roberta, and Lima, Maria. 2002. Variation in Central Modals: A repertoire of forms and types of usage in Middle English and Early Modern English. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gray, Bethany and Biber, Douglas. 2014. Stance markers. In Aijmer, Karin and Rühlemann, Christoph (eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 219–47.Google Scholar
Gray, Bethany, Biber, Douglas, and Hiltunen, Turo. 2011. The expression of stance in early (1665–1712) publications of the Philosophical Transactions and other contemporary medical prose: Innovations in a pioneering discourse. In Taavitsainen, Irma and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), Medical Writing in Early Modern English. Studies in English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 221–57.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grund, Peter J.. 2012. The nature of knowledge: Evidence and evidentiality in the witness depositions from the Salem witch trials. American Speech 87(1), 7–38.Google Scholar
Grund, Peter J.. 2013. ‘I saw ye Child burning in ye fire’: Evidentiality in Early Modern English witness depositions. In Jucker, Andreas H., Landert, Daniela, Seiler, Annina, and Studer-Joho, Nicole (eds.), Meaning in the History of English: Words and texts in context. Studies in Language Companion Series 148, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 319–41.Google Scholar
Grund, Peter J.. 2021. The Sociopragmatics of Stance: Community, language, and the witness depositions from the Salem witch trials. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 329, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 2014. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold, 4th ed.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hervey, Mary F. S. 1921. The Life Correspondence & Collections of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, ‘Father of Vertu in England’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hidalgo-Downing, Laura. 2017. Stance and intersubjective positioning across scientific discourse genres: Negative and modal epistemic discourse strategies. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 13(1), 65–85.Google Scholar
Hiltunen, Risto. 1996. ‘Tell me, be you a witch?’: Questions in the Salem witchcraft trials of 1692. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 9(1), 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiltunen, Turo. 2010. Philosophical Transactions. In Taavitsainen, Irma and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), Early Modern English Medical Texts. Corpus Description and Studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 127–31.Google Scholar
Hiltunen, Turo. 2022. Towards a local grammar of stance expression in Late Modern English medical writing. In Hiltunen, Turo and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Corpus Pragmatic Studies on the History of Medical Discourse. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 330, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 127–52.Google Scholar
Hiltunen, Turo and Tyrkkö, Jukka. 2011. Verbs of knowing: Discursive practices in early modern vernacular medicine. In Taavitsainen, Irma and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), Medical Writing in Early Modern English. Studies in English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 44–73.Google Scholar
Hintz, Carrie. 2005. An Audience of One: Dorothy Osborne’s letters to Sir William Temple, 1652–1654. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
House, Seymour Baker. 2008. More, Sir Thomas [St Thomas More]. In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/19191.Google Scholar
Hübler, Axel. 2011. Metapragmatics. In Bublitz, Wolfram and Norrick, Neal R. (eds.), Foundations of Pragmatics. Handbooks of Pragmatics 1, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 107–36.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan. 2004. Counting the uncountable: Problems of identifying evaluation in a text and in a corpus. In Partington, Alan, Morley, John, and Haarman, Louann (eds.), Corpora and Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang. 157–88.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan. 2007. Using a corpus to investigate stance quantitatively and qualitatively. In Englebretson, Robert (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 164, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 27–48.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan. 2011. Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and evaluative language. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan and Sinclair, John. 2000. A local grammar of evaluation. In Hunston, Susan and Thompson, Geoff (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. 74–101.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, Elly. 2005. The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 37(9), 1325–53.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Andreas and Jucker, Andreas H.. 1995. The historical perspective in pragmatics. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 35, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, Alexandra. 2009. Introduction: The sociolinguistics of stance. In Jaffe, Alexandra (ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. 3–28.Google Scholar
Joubert, Laurent. 1980. Treatise on Laughter. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.). 1995. Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 35, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H.. 2006. ‘but ’tis believed that...’: Speech and thought presentation in Early English newspapers. In Brownlees, Nicholas (ed.), News Discourse in Early Modern Britain: Selected papers of CHINED 2004. Bern: Peter Lang. 105–25.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H.. 2008. Historical pragmatics. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(5), 894–906.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H.. 2009. Speech act research between armchair, field and laboratory: The case of compliments. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 1611–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H.. 2012. Pragmatics in the history of linguistic thought. In Allan, Keith and Jaszczolt, Kasia M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 495–512.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H.. 2013. Corpus Pragmatics. In Östman, Jan-Ola and Verschueren, Jef (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1–17.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H.. 2018. Data in pragmatic research. In Jucker, Andreas H., Schneider, Klaus P., and Bublitz, Wolfram (eds.), Methods in Pragmatics. Handbooks of Pragmatics 10, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 3–36.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Landert, Daniela. 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
Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma. 2013. English Historical Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma. 2014a. Complimenting in the history of American English: A metacommunicative expression analysis. In Taavitsainen, Irma, Jucker, Andreas H., and Tuominen, Jukka (eds.), Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 243, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 257–76.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma. 2014b. Diachronic corpus pragmatics: Intersections and interactions. In Taavitsainen, Irma, Jucker, Andreas H., and Tuominen, Jukka (eds.), Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 243, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 3–26.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003. Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on ‘I think’. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 115, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2006. Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text and Talk 26(6), 699–731.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise and Bois, John W. Du (eds.). 2012. Stance, Affect, and Intersubjectivity in Interaction: Sequential and dialogic perspectives. Special issue of Text & Talk 32.4.Google Scholar
Kearns, Kate. 2007. Epistemic verbs and zero complementizer. English Language and Linguistics 11(3), 475–505.Google Scholar
Keisanen, Tiina and Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2014. Stance. In Schneider, Klaus P. and Barron, Anne (eds.), Pragmatics of Discourse. Handbooks of Pragmatics 3, Berlin: De Gruyter. 295–322.Google Scholar
Knowles, James. 2008. Conway, Edward, second Viscount Conway and second Viscount Killultagh. In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/55441.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter and Oesterreicher, Wulf. 1985. Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36, 15–43.Google Scholar
Koch, Thomas and Zerback, Thomas. 2013. Helpful or harmful? How frequent repetition affects perceived statement credibility. Journal of Communication 63, 993–1010.Google Scholar
Kohnen, Thomas. 2007. Text types and the methodology of diachronic speech act analysis. In Fitzmaurice, Susan M. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Methods in Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 139–66.Google Scholar
Kohnen, Thomas. 2008. Tracing directives through text and time: Towards a methodology of a corpus-based diachronic speech-act analysis. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Speech Acts in the History of English. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 176, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 295–310.Google Scholar
Kohnen, Thomas. 2009. Historical pragmatics: Focus on speech acts and texts. In Jucker, Andreas H., Schreier, Daniel, and Hundt, Marianne (eds.), Corpora: Pragmatics and discourse. Papers from the 29th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 29). Ascona, Switzerland, 14–18 May 2008. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. 13–36.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, Santorini, Beatrice, and Delfs, Lauren. 2004. Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English: Corpus description. URL www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCEME-RELEASE-3/index.html.Google Scholar
Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 1995. Demonstratives in Early Modern English letters. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 35, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 329–44.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 1987. Can (could) vs. may (might) in Old and Middle English: Testing a diachronic corpus. In Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (ed.), Neophilologica Fennica. Société Néophilologique 100 ans. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 45, Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. 205–40.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 2010. Data in historical pragmatics. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Historical Pragmatics. Handbooks of Pragmatics 8, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 33–67.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja and Walker, Terry. 2003. The linguistic study of Early Modern English speech-related texts: How ‘bad’ can ‘bad’ data be? Journal of English Linguistics 31(3), 221–48.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja and Walker, Terry. 2006. Guide to a Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 130, Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Landert, Daniela. 2017. Meta-communicative expressions and situational variation of stance marking: I say and I tell (you) in Early Modern English dialogues. Nordic Journal of English Studies 16(1), 120–44. URL http://ojs.ub.gu.se/ojs/index.php/njes/article/view/3838.Google Scholar
Landert, Daniela. 2019. Function-to-form mapping in corpora: Historical corpus pragmatics and the study of stance expressions. In Suhr, Carla, Nevalainen, Terttu, and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), From Data to Evidence in English Language Research. Leiden / Boston: Brill. 169–90.Google Scholar
Landert, Daniela, Dayter, Daria, Messerli, Thomas C., and Locher, Miriam A.. 2023. Corpus Pragmatics. Elements in Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langbein, John H. 2003. The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langlotz, Andreas and Locher, Miriam A.. 2017. (Im)politeness and emotion. In: Culpeper, Jonathan, Haugh, Michael, and Kádár, Dániel Z. (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 287–322.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2003. Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. In Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred, and Palmer, Frank (eds.), Modality in Contemporary English. Topics in English Linguistics 44, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 223–40.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2013. Where have all the modals gone? An essay on the declining frequency of core modal auxiliaries in recent standard English. In Arrese, Juana I. Marín, Carretero, Marta, Hita, Jorge Arús, and van der Auwera, Johan (eds.), English Modality: Core, periphery and evidentiality. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 95–115.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2007. Soþlice, forsoothe, truly – communicative principles and invited references in the history of truth-intensifying adverbs. In Fitzmaurice, Susan and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Methods in Historical Pragmatics. Topics in English Linguistics 52, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 81–105.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1979. Activity types and language. Linguistics 17(5–6), 365–99.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José, and Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2014. On the origin of clausal parenthetical constructions: Evidential/epistemic parentheticals with seem and impersonal think. In Taavitsainen, Irma, Jucker, Andreas H., and Tuominen, Jukka (eds.), Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 243, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 189–212.Google Scholar
Lutzky, Ursula. 2012. Discourse Markers in Early Modern English. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 227, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, vol. Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1993. Subjecthood and subjectivity. In Yaguello, M. (ed.), Subjecthood and Subjectivity: Proceedings of the colloquium ‘The status of the subject in linguistic theory’. Paris: Ophrys. 9–17.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2016. Audio recordings. In Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 146–63.Google Scholar
Manes, Joan and Wolfson, Nessa. 1981. The compliment formula. In Coulmas, Florian (ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton. 115–32.Google Scholar
Marsden, Jean I. 2000. Spectacle, horror, and pathos. In Fisk, Deborah Payne (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to English Restoration Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 174–90.Google Scholar
Marttila, Ville. 2010. Recipe collections and materia medica. In Taavitsainen, Irma and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), Early Modern English Medical Texts: Corpus description and studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 101–9.Google Scholar
Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 1993. The author–addressee relationship and the marking of stance in the characterization of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century genre styles. Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 71(3), 733–45.Google Scholar
Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 1995. Marking of stance in Early Modern English imaginative narration. In Görtschacher, Wolfgang and Klein, Holger (eds.), Narrative Strategies in Early English Fiction. Lewiston, NY: Mellen. 25–52.Google Scholar
Meurman-Solin, Anneli and Tyrkkö, Jukka. 2013. Introduction. In Meurman-Solin, Anneli and Tyrkkö, Jukka (eds.), Principles and Practices for the Digital Editing and Annotation of Diachronic Data. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 14, Helsinki: VARIENG. URL www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/14/introduction.html#sect3.Google Scholar
Moore, Colette. 2011. Quoting Speech in Early English. Studies in English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mushin, Ilana. 2001. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance: Narrative retelling. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 87, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1994. Ladies and gentlemen: The generalization of titles in Early Modern English. In Fernández, Francisco, Fuster, Miguel, and Calvo, Juan José (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 1992. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 113, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 317–27.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2003. Historical Sociolinguistics. Harlow/London: Pearson.Google Scholar
Nurmi, Arja. 2009. May: The social history of an auxiliary. In Jucker, Andreas H., Schreier, Daniel, and Hundt, Marianne (eds.), Corpora: Pragmatics and discourse. Papers from the 29th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 29). Ascona, Switzerland, 14–18 May 2008. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. 321–42.Google Scholar
Nurmi, Arja, Nevala, Minna, and Palander-Collin, Minna. 2009. The Language of Daily Life in England (1400–1800). Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 183, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2000. Epistemic Modality, Language and Conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Human Cognitive Processing 5, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3), 383–400.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2015. Subjectivity: Between discourse and conceptualization. Journal of Pragmatics 86, 106–10.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2016. Analyses of the modal meanings. In Nuyts, Jan and van der Auwera, Johan (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood. Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 31–49.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan and van der Auwera, Johan (eds.). 2016. The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, Anne. 2018. Corpus-based function-to-form approaches. In Jucker, Andreas H., Schneider, Klaus P., and Bublitz, Wolfram (eds.), Methods in Pragmatics. Handbooks of Pragmatics 10, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 587–618.Google Scholar
Pahta, Päivi. 2011. Code-switching in Early Modern English medical writing. In Taavitsainen, Irma and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), Medical Writing in Early Modern English. Studies in English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 115–34.Google Scholar
Palander-Collin, Minna. 1999a. Grammaticalization and Social Embedding: I think and methinks in Middle and Early Modern English. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Palander-Collin, Minna. 1999b. I think, methinks: Register variation, stratification, education and nonstandard language. In Taavitsainen, Irma, Melchers, Gunnel, and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), Writing in Nonstandard English. Pragmatics & beyond new series 67, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 243–62.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank Robert. 1990. Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman, 2nd ed.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank Robert. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed.Google Scholar
Parker, Kenneth. 2004. Osborne, Dorothy (married name Dorothy Temple, Lady Temple). In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Parry, Edward Abbott (ed.). 1888. The Love Letters of Dorothy Osborne to Sir William Temple 1652–1654. London: Griffith, Farran, Okeden & Welsh.Google Scholar
Pryor, Felix. 2003. Elizabeth I: Her life in letters. Berkeley / Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Raskin, Victor. 1985. Semantic Mechnisms of Humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1991. On the history of that/zero as object clause links in English. In Aijmer, Karin and Altenberg, Bengt (eds.), English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman. 272–89.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti and Tyrkkö, Jukka. 2013. The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (HC). In Meurman-Solin, Anneli and Tyrkkö, Jukka (eds.), Principles and Practices for the Digital Editing and Annotation of Diachronic Data. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 14, Helsinki: VARIENG. URL www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/14/rissanen-tyrkko/.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, Jesús (ed.). 2008. Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics: A mutualistic entente. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rühlemann, Christoph. 2010. What can a corpus tell us about pragmatics? In O’Keeffe, Anne and McCarthy, Michael (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics, London/New York: Routledge. 288–301.Google Scholar
Rühlemann, Christoph. 2011. Corpus-based pragmatics II: quantitative studies. In Bublitz, Wolfram and Norrick, Neal R. (eds.), Foundations of Pragmatics. Handbook of Pragmatics Series 1, Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 629–56.Google Scholar
Rühlemann, Christoph. 2019. Corpus Linguistics for Pragmatics: A guide for research. Oxon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rühlemann, Christoph and Aijmer, Karin. 2014. Corpus pragmatics: Laying the foundations. In Aijmer, Karin and Rühlemann, Christoph (eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–26.Google Scholar
Santamaría-García, Carmen. 2014. Evaluative discourse and politeness in university students’ communication through social networking sites. In Thompson, Geoff and Alba-Juez, Laura (eds.), Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 387–411.Google Scholar
Sbisà, Marina. 2018. Philosophical pragmatics. In Jucker, Andreas H., Schneider, Klaus P., and Bublitz, Wolfram (eds.), Methods in Pragmatics. Handbooks of Pragmatics 10, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 133–54.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. The semantic and pragmatic development of substitutive complex prepositions in English. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 35, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 243–73.Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2000. The functions of I think in political discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10(1), 41–63.Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie and Aijmer, Karin. 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Topics in English Linguistics 56, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie and Defour, Tine. 2012. Verbs of answering revisited: A corpus-based study of their pragmatic development. In Busse, Ulrich and Hübler, Axel (eds.), Investigations into the Meta-Communicative Lexicon of English: A contribution to historical pragmatics. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 220, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 223–45.Google Scholar
Smith, Nicholas and Waters, Cathleen. 2018. From broadcast archive to language corpus: Designing and investigating a sociohistorical corpus from Desert Island Discs. ICAME Journal 42, 167–89.Google Scholar
Smith, Nicholas and Waters, Cathleen. 2019. Variation and change in a specialized register: A comparison of random and sociolinguistic sampling outcomes in Desert Island Discs. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(2), 169–201.Google Scholar
Squartini, Mario. 2016. Interactions between modality and other semantic categories. In Nuyts, Jan and van der Auwera, Johan (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood. Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 50–67.Google Scholar
Suhr, Carla. 2010. Regimens and health guides. In Taavitsainen, Irma and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), Early Modern English Medical Texts: Corpus description and studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 111–18.Google Scholar
Suhr, Carla and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.). 2012. Developing Corpus Methodology for Historical Pragmatics. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 11, Helsinki: VARIENG. URL www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/11/.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 1994. Subjectivity as a text-type marker in historical stylistics. Language and Literature 3(3), 197–212.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 1995. Interjections in Early Modern English: From imitations of spoken to conventions of written language. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 35, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 419–45.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 1999. Dialogues in Late Medieval and Early Modern English medical writing. In Jucker, Andreas H., Fritz, Gerd, and Lebsanft, Franz (eds.), Historical Dialogue Analysis. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 66, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 243–68.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 2000. Metadiscursive practices and the evolution of Early English medical writing 1375–1550. In Kirk, John M. (ed.), Corpora Galore: Analyses and techniques in describing English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 191–207.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 2001. Evidentiality and scientific thought-styles: English medical writing in Late Middle English and Early Modern English. In Gotti, Maurizio and Dossena, Marina (eds.), Modality in Specialized Texts. Bern: Peter Lang. 21–52.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 2009. The pragmatics of knowledge and meaning: Corpus linguistic approaches to changing thought-styles in early modern medical discourse. In Jucker, Andreas H., Schreier, Daniel, and Hundt, Marianne (eds.), Corpora: Pragmatics and discourse. Papers from the 29th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 29). Ascona, Switzerland, 14–18 May 2008. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. 37–62.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 2010. Discourse and genre dynamics in Early Modern English medical writing. In: Taavitsainen, Irma and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), Early Modern English Medical Texts: Corpus Description and Studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 29–53.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 2018. Historical corpus pragmatics. In Jucker, Andreas H., Schneider, Klaus P., and Bublitz, Wolfram (eds.), Methods in Pragmatics. Handbooks of Pragmatics 10, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 527–54.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma and Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2007. Historical pragmatics: What it is and how to do it. In Fitzmaurice, Susan and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Methods in Historical Pragmatics. Topics in English Linguistics 52, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 11–36.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma and Hiltunen, Turo. 2012. Now as a text deictic feature in Late Medieval and Early Modern English medical writing. In Busse, Ulrich and Hübler, Axel (eds.), Investigations into the Meta-Communicative Lexicon of English: A contribution to historical pragmatics. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 220, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 179–205.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma and Jucker, Andreas H.. 2010. Trends and developments in historical pragmatics. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Historical Pragmatics. Handbooks of Pragmatics 8, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 3–30.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma and Jucker, Andreas H.. 2015. Twenty years of historical pragmatics: Origins, developments and changing thought styles. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma, Jucker, Andreas H., and Tuominen, Jukka (eds.). 2014. Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 243, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma and Pahta, Päivi. 1997. Corpus of Early English medical writing 1375–1750. ICAME Journal 21, 71–8.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma and Pahta, Päivi. (eds.). 2004. Medical and Scientific Writing in Late Medieval English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma and Pahta, Päivi. (eds.). 2010. Early Modern English Medical Texts: Corpus description and studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma and Suhr, Carla. 2010. Medicine in society. In Taavitsainen, Irma and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), Early Modern English Medical Texts: Corpus description and studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 133–46.Google Scholar
Taylor, Ann, Nurmi, Arja, Warner, Anthony, Pintzuk, Susan, and Nevalainen, Terttu. 2006. The Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence. URL www-users.york.ac.uk/~lang22/PCEEC-manual/index.htm.Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff and Hunston, Susan. 2000. Evaluation: An introduction. In Hunston, Susan and Thompson, Geoff (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. 1–27.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65(1), 31–55.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 31–54.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. Grammaticalization. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Historical Pragmatics. Handbooks of Pragmatics 8, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 97–126.Google Scholar
Tyrkkö, Jukka, Hickey, Raymond, and Marttila, Ville. 2010. Exploring Early Modern English Medical Texts Manual for EMEMT presenter. In Taavitsainen, Irma and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), Early Modern English Medical Texts: Corpus description and studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 219–77.Google Scholar
Vaughan, Elaine, McCarthy, Michael, and Clancy, Brian. 2017. Vague category markers as turn-final items in Irish English. World Englishes 36(2), 208–23.Google Scholar
Viberg, Åke. 1983. The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics 21(1), 123–62.Google Scholar
Virtanen, Tuija. 1995. ‘Then I saw to antique heddes’: Discourse strategies in Early Modern English Travelogues. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 35, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 499–513.Google Scholar
Walker, Terry. 2007. Thou and You in Early Modern English Dialogues: Trials, depositions, and drama comedy. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 158, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Walker, Terry and Grund, Peter J.. 2017. ‘Speaking base approbious words’: Speech representation in Early Modern English witness depositions. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 18(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Wårvik, Brita. 1995. The ambiguous adverbial/conjunctions þa and þonne in Middle English: A discourse-pragmatic study of then and when in Early English saints’ lives. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 35, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 345–57.Google Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2010. Evidentiality and Perception Verbs in English and German. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2011. (Inter)Subjectivity and evidential perception verbs in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics 43(1), 347–60.Google Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2015. On the grammaticalization of inferential evidential meaning: English ‘seem’ and German ‘scheinen’. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 20(2), 233–71.Google Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2016a. Evidentiality in Early Modern English Medical Treatises (1500–1700). Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 2(2), 235–63.Google Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2016b. Using corpora to track changing thought styles: Evidentiality, epistemology, and Early Modern English and German scientific discourse. Kalbotyra 69, 265–91.Google Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2023. Epistemic space and key concepts in early and late modern medical discourse: An exploration of two genres. English Language and Linguistics 27(2), 241–69.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn. 2018. Evidentials and epistemic modality. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 85–108.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yus, Francisco. 2016. Humour and Relevance. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Leo M. and Veith, Ilza. 1993. Great Ideas in the History of Surgery. San Francisco: Norman Publishing.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
  • Daniela Landert, Universität Heidelberg
  • Book: Methods in Historical Corpus Pragmatics
  • Online publication: 22 February 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009237369.018
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
  • Daniela Landert, Universität Heidelberg
  • Book: Methods in Historical Corpus Pragmatics
  • Online publication: 22 February 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009237369.018
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
  • Daniela Landert, Universität Heidelberg
  • Book: Methods in Historical Corpus Pragmatics
  • Online publication: 22 February 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009237369.018
Available formats
×