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