Introduction: The realization of interpersonal meaning

REFERENCES

• Aijmer, Karin and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. 2003. “The discourse particle well and its equivalents in Swedish and Dutch.” Linguistics 41:1123–1161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aijmer, Karin and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen 2004. “A model and a methodology for the study of pragmatic markers: The semantic field of expectation.” Journal of Pragmatics 36:1781–1805.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaugrande, Robert and Wolfgang Dressier. 1981. Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Bertuccelli Papi, Marcella. 1997. “Implicitness.” Handbook of pragmatics. Eds. Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert and Chris Bulcaen. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. 1–29.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, Chris. 2003. “Multi-word sequences and their relevance for recent models of Functional Grammar.” Functions of Language 10:179–208.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, Chris 2004. “Corpus studies and functional linguistic theories.” Functions of Language 11:147–186.
   Google Scholar
• Christie, Fran. Ed. 1991. Literacy in social processes: Papers from the inaugural Australian Systemic Functional Linguistics Conference, held at Deakin University, January 1990. Darwin: Centre for Studies of Language in Education. Northern Territory University.
   Google Scholar
• Christie, Fran Ed. 1999. Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: linguistic and social processes. Open Linguistics Series. London and New York: Cassell.
   Google Scholar
• Davidse, Kristin. 1997. “The subject-object versus the agent-patient asymmetry.” Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology 86:413–431.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing discourse. Textual analysis for social research. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Firth, John Rupert. 1957. A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–1955. Studies in linguistic analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. Pp. 1–32.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael. 1965. “Types of structure.” Mimeo. University College, London. Reprinted in Readings in Systemic Linguistics. 1981. Eds. Michael Halliday and James Martin. London: Batsford. Pp. 29–41.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael 1966. “Lexis as a linguistic level.” In memory of J.R. Firth. Eds. Charles Bazell et al. London: Longman. Pp. 148–162.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael 1967a. “Notes on transitivity and theme in English 1.” Journal of Linguistics 3:37–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael 1967b. “Notes on transitivity and theme in English 2.” Journal of Linguistics 3:199–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael…. 1968. “Notes on transitivity and theme in English 3.” Journal of Linguistics 4:179–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael… 1970. “Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English.” Foundations of Language 6:322–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael 1978. Language as social semiotic. The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael… 1979. “Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure, and their determination by different semantic functions.” Function and context in linguistic analysis: A Festschrift for William Haas. Eds. David J. Allerton, et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 57–79.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael…. 1980. “Text semantics and clause grammar: some patterns of realization.” Mimeo, Department of Linguistics, University of Sydney.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael….…. 1985/1994. An introduction to functional grammar. (First/Second Edition.) London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael and Christian M.I.M Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. Third Edition. London: Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Hengeveld, Kees. 1989. “Layers and operators in Functional Grammar. Journal of Linguistics 25:127–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hjelmslev, Louis. 1961. Prolegomena to a theory of language. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hodge, Robert and Günther Kress. 1979/1992. Language as ideology. First/Second edition. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hunston, Susan. 2003. “Lexis, word form and complementation pattern: a corpus study.” Functions of Language 10:31–60.
   Google Scholar
• Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical foundations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Langacker, Ronald W.. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Louw, Bill. 1993. “Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer: the diachronic potential of semantic prosodies.” Text and technology. In honour of John Sinclair. Ed. Mona Bilker et al. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. 157–176.
   Google Scholar
• McGregor, William B. 1997. Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.
   Google Scholar
• Macken-Horarik, Mary & James R. Martin. Eds. 2003. Negotiating heteroglossia: Social perspectives on evaluation. Special issue of Text 23:2.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, James R. 2000. “Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English.” Evaluation in Text, authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Eds. Susan Hunston and Geoff Thompson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 142–175.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, James R. and David Rose. 2003. Working with discourse. London and New York: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, James R. and Ruth Wodak. Eds. 2003. Re/reading the past: Critical and functional perspectives on time and value. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1990. “Metafunctional complementarity and resonance.” Mimeo, University of Sydney, Department of Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Noonan, Michael. 1985. “Complementation.” Language typology and syntactic description. Volume II: Complex constructions. Ed. Timothy Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 42–140.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 1996. “Image-building through modality: the case of political interviews.” Discourse and Society 7:389–415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie 1997. “Modal (Un)certainty in Political Discourse: A Functional Account.” Language Sciences 19:341–56.
   Google Scholar
• Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie 2004. “Intersubjective positioning in talk shows: A case study from British TV.” Text 24:399–422.
   Google Scholar
• Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, Peter White and Karin Aijmer. 2007. “Presupposition and ‘taking-for-granted’ in mass communicated political argument. An illustration from British, Flemish and Swedish political colloquy.” Political discourse in the media. Eds. Anita Fetzer and Gerda Lauerbach. Oxford: Elsevier. Pp. 31–74.
   Google Scholar
• Slembrouck, Stef. 2005. “Discourse, critique and ethnography: class-oriented coding in accounts of child protection.” Functional approaches to discourse. Eds. AnneMarie Simon-Vandenbergen and Erich Steiner. Special issue of Language Sciences 27: 6, 619–650.
   Google Scholar
• Stubbs, Michael. 1995. “Collocations and semantic profiles: on the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies.” Functions of Language 2:23–56.
   Google Scholar
• Stubbs, Michael, Isabel Barth. 2003. “Using recurrent phrases as text-type discriminators: a quantitative method and some findings.” Functions of Language 10:61–104.
   Google Scholar
• Taverniere, Miriam. 2002. Systemic-Functional Linguistics and the notion of grammatical metaphor: A theoretical study and a proposal for a semiotic-functional integrative model. Doctoral dissertation, English Department. University of Ghent.
   Google Scholar
• Thibault, Paul. 1987. “An interview with Michael Halliday.” Language topics: essays in honour of Michael Halliday. Vol. 2. Eds. Ross Steele and Terry Threadgold. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. 599–627.
   Google Scholar
• Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. “From prepositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization.” Perspectives on historical linguistics. Eds. Winfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. 245–271.
   Google Scholar
• Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1989. “On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change.” Language 65:31–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1995. “Grammaticalization and subjectification.” Subjectivity and subjectification. Eds. Dieter Stein and Susan Wright. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 31–54.
   Google Scholar
• Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2005. “From ideational to interpersonal: A reassessment.” Paper presented at FIT-IGRA conference: From ideational to interpersonal: perspectives from grammaticalization. Leuven 10–12 February 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Tucker, Gordon. 1996. “So grammarians haven't the faintest idea: reconciling lexis-oriented and grammar-oriented approaches to language.” Functional descriptions: theory in practice. Eds. Ruqaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran and David Butt. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. 145–178.
   Google Scholar
• Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2004a. “Deixis and grounding in speech and thought representation.” Journal of Pragmatics 36:489–520.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandelanotte, Lieven 2004b. “From representational to scopai ‘distancing indirect speech or thought’: a cline of subjectification.” Text 24:547–585.
   Google Scholar
• Vandelanotte, Lieven 2005. Types of speech and thought representation in English: Syntagmatic structure, deixis and expressivity, semantics. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Leuven.
   Google Scholar
• Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• White, Peter. 2000. “Dialogue and intersubjectivity: Reinterpreting the semantics of modality and hedging.” In Working with dialogue. Eds. Malcolm Coulthard et al. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Pp. 67–80.
   Google Scholar
• White, Peter 2002. “Appraisal.” Handbook of pragmatics. Eds. Jef Verschueren et al. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. 1–27.
   Google Scholar
• White, Peter 2003. “Beyond Modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance.” Text 23:259–284.
   Google Scholar