Modality as dialogue: a Bakhtinian reanalysis of epistemic stance

REFERENCES

• Aijmer, Karin. 1997. “I Think—an English Modal Particle.” Modality in Germanic Languages. Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Eds. Toril Swan & Olaf Westvik. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 1–47.
   Google Scholar
• Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1986. “The Problem of Speech Genres.” Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press. Pp. 60–101.
   Google Scholar
• Coates, Janet. 1983. The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries, London: Croom Helm.
   Google Scholar
• Coulthard, Malcolm. 1994. “On Analysing and Evaluating Text.” Advances in Written Text Analysis. Ed. Malcolm Coulthard. London: Routledge. Pp. 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Davidson-Nielsen, Niels. 1987. “Has English a Future?: Remarks on Tense.” Proceedings From the Third Nordic Conference for English Studies, Volume I. Eds. Ishrat Lindblad. & Magnus Ljung. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell. Pp. 53–59
   Google Scholar
• Declerck, Renaat & Ilse Depraetere. 1995. “The Double System of Tense Forms Referring to Future Time in English.” Journal of Semantics 12 (3): 269–310.
   Google Scholar
• Eco, Umberto. 1984. The Role of the Reader. Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London, Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Huddleston, Rodney. 1995. “The Case Against a Future Tense in English.” Studies in Language 9(2): 399–446.
   Google Scholar
• Hunston, Susan. 2000. “Evaluation and the Planes of Discourse: Status and Value in Persuasive Texts.” Eds. Hunston, Susan & Geoff Thompson. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 176–206.
   Google Scholar
• Iedema, Rick, Susan Feez & Peter White. 1994. Media Literacy. Sydney: Disadvantaged Schools Program, NSW Department of School Education.
   Google Scholar
• Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Macken-Horarik, Mary and Jim Martin. 2003. “Special Issue: Negotiating Heteroglossia: Social Perspectives on Evaluation.” Text 23(2).
   Google Scholar
• Martin, Jim. 1997. “Analysing Genre: Functional Parameters.” Eds. Christie, Fran & Jim Martin. Genres and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School. London: Cassell. Pp. 3–39.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, Jim. 2000. “Beyond Exchange: APPRAISAL Systems in English.” Eds. Hunston, Susan & Geoff Thompson. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 142–75.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, Jim & Peter White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Pal- grave/Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, Frank. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 1998. “I Think and Its Dutch Equivalents in Parliamentary Debates.” Eds. Johansson, Stig. & Signe Oksefjell. Corpora and Cross-Linguistic Research. Theory, Method and Case Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Pp. 297–331.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, Geoff. 2001. “Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue With the Reader.” Applied Linguistics 22(1): 58–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voloshinov, Valentin. 1995. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, Bakhtinian Thought—an Introductory Reader. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• White, Peter. 1998. “Telling Media Tales: the News Story As Rhetoric.” Ms. University of Sydney, Sydney.
   Google Scholar
• White, Peter 2002a. “Appraisal—the Language of Evaluation and Intersubjective Stance,” website at www.grammatics.com/appraisal.
   Google Scholar
• White, Peter 2002b. “Appraisal—the Language of Evaluation and Stance.” Eds. Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert & Chris Bulcaen. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: 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(3): 259–284.
   Google Scholar