17. According to the Court of Appeals, section 3593(b)(2)(C), which provides that a new jury shall be impaneled for a new sentencing hearing if the guilt phase jury is
2.4. Dissenting or concurring opinion: “Pretty risk” is pretty flabby language (even flabbier than “less likely”)… [5.AV_DO2]
End of Figure 20.
6.5. Significant absences
Finally, basing my argument upon observations as well as studies on the discourse of silence, [Footnote 19] I propose a claim that the absence of certain linguistic features in judicial opinions can be as meaningful as the presence of the very same
features. Also, I believe that it can be asserted that “silence” in written data can serve as a declaration of the author’s viewpoint as well as index their autonomy and resistance. Naturally, a question arises here as to how such “silence” or “absence”
should be identified in written discourse, as in some cases the omission of
meaningful content is not overt and can be detected only by way of comparison with similar data.
In the corpus analysed, the first striking “silence” was the absence, in majority opinions, of parenthetical comments introduced by the first-person plural pronoun we, unlike their counterparts containing the pronoun I in dissenting and concurring opinions.
P. 116
The second “silence”, in turn, was instantiated by the absence, in majority holdings, of reader-oriented questions. By contrast, their presence in dissenting or concurring opinions can be perceived as an interactive discourse feature encouraging dialogue with the reader, [Footnote 20] which is not necessarily the aim of the Court when taking its stance as a collective authority in majority holdings. Finally, the third
“silence” which I identified in some dissenting opinions was the absence of the qualifying adverb respectfully in the concluding line, in which dissenting justices give, in a way, their last word (Examples 20 and 21). Of course, it may be argued that the absence is purely accidental or that it is a matter of legal writing conventions, rather than a conscious choice; however, an interpretation according to which the omission of this adverb is meaningful appears equally plausible. In line with such reasoning, the addition of respectfully might be seen as a an additional signal of respect for the Court’s authority, despite the dissenting justice’s principal disagreement with the Court’s ruling. Finally, in some dissenting opinions the last line was missing
altogether (Example 22), which could also be interpreted as an act of stancetaking.
Although these findings are not generalisable, they indicate that it might be worth investigating what role, if any, such “absences” play across written legal genres:
20. I respectfully dissent. [5.AV_DO2, Justice Scalia]
21. I dissent. [2.WA_DO2, Justice Blackmun]
22. [no line] [3.JUS_DO1, Justice Ginsburg]
7. Conclusions
As the discussion above indicates, the repertoire of linguistic resources which US Supreme Court Justices use to convey stance is quite varied, with the justices employing a wide range of linguistic markers and their combinations to express personal feelings and subjective assessments. It is also clear from the study that stancetaking is an inherent argumentative and rhetorical strategy pursued by the justices and that it constitutes an interpersonal dimension of judicial discourse.
Therefore, we can justifiably highlight links between emotion, evaluation and judicial decision-making, since, as has been demonstrated, US Supreme Court Justices commit themselves to the facts and arguments presented in the opinions. What is more, they discursively construct their own attitudes and emotions in addition to the propositional meaning conveyed.
With respect to the variation in stance marking identified in the opinion types
analysed, a greater frequency and variety of unmitigated disagreement markers was found in the case of dissenting and concurring opinions than in the case of majority holdings, which was also the case with emotive and evaluative language.
P. 117
Additionally, the prefix mis- emerged as one of the high-frequency markers used to convey negative assessments, especially in the opinions drafted by individual justices. Hedges, on the other hand, appeared to be of lesser importance than the other stance devices scrutinised. Also, as regards the presence of parenthetical comments and reader-oriented questions, it was noted that they too were common interactive features of dissenting opinions, unlike majority holdings. It must be acknowledged, of course, that these observations may not be equally valid with respect to other types of judicial writing. To be generalisable, the conclusions would have to be attested by quantitative corpus-based studies, thus providing a more thorough picture of the linguistic coding of stance in judicial decision-making.
Irrespective of the above, I hope to have demonstrated that stance markers found in US Supreme Court opinions serve to: introduce the arguer’s perspective in the construction of an institutional identity; project a coherent image of the Court and its justices from the point of view of a shared system of values and beliefs and, finally, assert the Court’s and the justices’ authority, values and ideology. Furthermore, even though I am aware of the limitations arising from the relatively small size of the
corpus and the fact that the analysis focused on a restricted number of features, the findings, as I believe, make several contributions. Firstly, they highlight areas which might be of interest to stance scholars analysing specialist discourse as well as suggest directions which future legal discourse analysts might pursue in quantitative corpus-based studies of written legal genres. Secondly, they shift the focus from
“static” accounts of stance and stance-related phenomena in written discourse to interactive, discourse-oriented approaches to written data. Thirdly, they add to the growing body of evidence that emotive and evaluative language is present in institutional discourse, undermining the claim that the latter comprises purely impartial and matter-of-fact communication. Finally, despite the fact that no quantification of the data was provided, the results obtained tentatively map out stancetaking strategies and devices which may be relevant in future corpus-based analyses of judicial decision-making at various levels in the legal system.
In conclusion, adopting a more general perspective, I would like to reiterate, after Du Bois (Footnote 117 Du Bois 2007: 146), that stance “is more than the context-free connotations of words or sentences” and that “the missing ingredients can only be found by contextualizing the utterance, defined as the situated realization of language in use”.
Symbols used
MO – majority opinion CO – concurring opinion DO – dissenting opinion
CDO – opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part
P. 118 References
Aijmer K. 2007. Modal adverbs as discourse markers a bilingual approach to the study of indeed. – Rehbein J., Hohenstein Ch., Pietsch L. (eds.). Connectivity in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 329-344.
Aikhenvald A.Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford, New York.
Aikhenvald A.Y. 2006. Evidentiality in Grammar. – Keith B. (ed.). Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. [2. edition, vol. 4]. Amsterdam: 320-325.
Barth-Weingarten D. 2003. Conncession in spoken English. On the realisation of a discourse-pragmatic relation. Tübingen.
Biber D. 2006. Stance in spoken and written university registers. – Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5.2: 97-116.
Biber D. et al. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow.
Biber D., Finegan E. 1988. Adverbial stance types in English. – Discourse Processes 11.1: 1-34.
Black R.C. et al. 2011. Emotions, oral arguments, and Supreme Court decision making. – The Journal of Politics 73.2: 572-581.
Bongelli R., Zuczkowski A. 2008. Indicatori linguistici percettivi e cognitivi. Roma.
Brezina V. 2012. Epistemic markers in university advisory sessions. Towards a local grammar of epistemicity. [PhD dissertation]. University of Auckland.
Chafe W. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. – Chafe W., Nichols J. (eds.). Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood:
261-272.
Chafe W., Nichols J. (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood.
Chilton P. 2004. Analysing political discourse. London, New York.
Chilton P. 2005. Vectors, viewpoints and viewpoint shift: Toward a discourse of space theory. – Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 78-116.
Coates J. 1987. Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. – Transactions of the Philological Society 85.1: 110-131.
Coates J. 2003. The role of epistemic modality in women’s talk. – Facchinetti R., Krug M., Palmer F.R. (eds.). Modality in contemporary English. Berlin: 331-348.
Czerwionka L. 2010. The mitigation process in Spanish discourse: Motivations, linguistic analyses, and effects on interaction and interlocutors. [PhD dissertation].
University of Texas.
de Haan F. 2001. The relation between modality and evidentiality. – Müller R., Reis M. (eds.). Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte,
Sonderheft 9: Hamburg.
de Haan F. 2005. Encoding speaker perspective: Evidentials. – Frajzyngier Z., Rood D., Hodges A. (eds.). Linguistic variation and language theories. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia.
DeLancey S. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. – Journal of Pragmatics 33: 369-382.
Dendale P., Tasmowski L. 2001. Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions. – Journal of Pragmatics 33: 339-348.
Dontcheva-Navratilova O. 2011. Coherence in political speeches. Brno.
Du Bois J.W. 2007. The stance triangle. – Englrebretson R. (ed.). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 139-182.
Edwards G. 2009. Structures of stance in interaction. [MA thesis]. University of Melbourne.
Englebretson R. 2007. Stancetaking in discourse: An introduction. – Englebretson R.
(ed.). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 1-26.
Faller M.T. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. [PhD dissertation]. Stanford University.
Finegan E. 2010. Legal writing: attitude and emphasis. Corpus linguistic approaches to ‘legal language’: Adverbial expression of attitude and emphasis in Supreme Court opinions. – Coulthard M., Johnson A. (eds.). The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. 65-77.
P. 119
Fraser B. 1980. Conversational mitigation. – Journal of Pragmatics 4: 341-350.
Frawley W. 1992. Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale (New Jersey).
González M. et al. 2012. Evidentiality and epistemicity in a multimodal reporting task.
The case of Catalan. – The Nature of Evidentiality. [conference 14 – 16 June 2012].
Leiden.
Goodwin Ch. 2007. Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. – Discourse and Society 18.1: 53-73.
Halliday M.A.K. 1994. An Introduction to functional grammar. [2. edition]. London.
Harwood N. 2005. ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted… In this article I am to do just that’: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. – Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1207-1231.
Holmes J. 1988. Doubt and certainty in ESL Textbooks. – Applied Linguistics 9.1:
21-44.
Hoye L.F. 1997. Adverbs and modality in English. London.
Hunston S., Thompson G. (eds.). 2000. Evaluation in text. Oxford.
Hyland K. 1996. Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. – Applied Linguistics 17.4: 433.
Hyland K. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam, Philadelphia.
Kärkkäinen E. 2010. Position and scope of epistemic phrases in planned and unplanned American English. – Kaltenböck G., Mihatsch W., Schneider S. (eds.).
New approaches to hedging. Bingley: 203-236.
Keisanen T. 2007. Stancetaking as an interactional activity: Challenging the prior speaker. – Englebretson R. (ed.). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 253-281.
Kurzon D. 1998. The discourse of silence. Amsterdam, Philadelphia.
Lakoff G. 1973. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts.
– Journal of Philosophical Logic 2.4: 458-508.
Marcinkowski M. 2010. Modality in academic discourse: Meaning and use of epistemic verbs in research articles. – Jančaříková R. (ed.). Interpretation of meaning across discourses. Brno: 47-59.
Martin J.R. 2000. Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. – Hunston S., Thompson G. (eds.). Evaluation in text. Oxford.
Martin J.R., White P.R.R. 2005. The language of evaluation, appraisal in English.
London, New York.
Nuyts J. 2001. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam, Philadelphia.
Ochs E. 1996. Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. – Gumperz J.J., Levinson S.C. (eds.). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: 407-437.
Palmer F.R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge.
Palmer F.R. 2001. Mood and modality. [2. edition].Cambridge.
Radden G., Dirven R. 2007. Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam, Philadelphia.
Rauniomaa M. 2008. Recovery through repetition. Returning to prior talk and taking a stance in American-English and Finnish conversations. – Acta Universitatis
Ouluensis B85. Oulu. [urn.fi/urn:isbn:9789514289248].
Ring K.A. (ed.). 2004. Scalia dissents. Writings of the Supreme Court’s wittiest, most outspoken justice. Washington, DC.
Rooryck J. 2001a. State of the article: Evidentiality, Part 1. Glot International 5.4:
125-133.
Rooryck J. 2001b. State of the article: Evidentiality, Part 2. Glot International 5.5:
161-168.
P. 120
Salmi-Tolonen T. 2005. Persuasion in judicial argumentation: The opinions of the Advocates General at the European Court of Justice. – Halmari H., Virtanen T.
(eds.). Persuasion across genres. A linguistic approach. Amsterdam, Philadelphia:
59-101.
Simon-Vandenbergen A.M., Aijmer K. 2007. The semantic field of modal certainty. A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin, New York.
Stubbe M., Holmes J. 1995. You know, eh and other “exasperating expressions”: An analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English. – Language & Communication 15.1: 63-88.
Stubbs M. 1996. Text and corpus analysis: Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford, Cambridge (USA).
Thompson S.A., Mulac A. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. – Traugott E.C., Heine B. (eds.). Approaches to grammaticalization. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 313-339.
White P.R.R. 2003. Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. – Text 23.2: 259-284.
Wiemer B. 2006. Particles, parentheticals, conjunctions and prepositions as
evidentiality markers in contemporary Polish (a first exploratory study). – Studies in Polish Linguistics 3: 5-67.
Legal cases cited
1. Lewis v. Jeffers 497 U.S. 764 (1990) 2. Walton v. Arizona 497 U.S. 639 (1990) 3. Jones v. US 527 U.S. 373 (1999) 4. Penry v. Johnson 532 U.S. 782 (2001) 5. Atkins v. Virginia 536 U.S. 304 (2002) 6. Ring v. Arizona 536 U.S. 584 (2002) 7. Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. 551 (2005) 8. Brown v. Payton 544 U.S. 133 (2005) 9. Brown v. Sanders 546 U.S. 212 (2006) 10. Kansas v. Marsh 548 U.S. 163 (2006)
Harvard footnotes
Footnote 1. Biber D. et al. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English.
Harlow: 966. Return to the main document.
Footnote 2. Du Bois J.W. 2007. The stance triangle. – Englrebretson R. (ed.).
Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 139-182. Return to the main document.
Footnote 3. Keisanen T. 2007. Stancetaking as an interactional activity: Challenging the prior speaker. – Englebretson R. (ed.). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 253-281. Return to the main document.
Footnote 4. Rauniomaa M. 2008. Recovery through repetition. Returning to prior talk and taking a stance in American-English and Finnish conversations. – Acta
Universitatis Ouluensis B85. Oulu: 40 [urn.fi/urn:isbn:9789514289248]. Return to the main document.
Footnote 5. Du Bois J.W. 2007. The stance triangle. – Englrebretson R. (ed.).
Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 139-182. Return to the main document.
Footnote 6. Chilton P. 2004. Analysing political discourse. London, New York. Return to the main document.
Footnote 7. Chilton P. 2005. Vectors, viewpoints and viewpoint shift: Toward a discourse of space theory. – Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 78-116.
Return to the main document.
Footnote 8. Stubbs M. 1996. Text and corpus analysis: Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford, Cambridge (USA): 202. Return to the main document.
Footnote 9. Martin J.R. 2000. Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. – Hunston S., Thompson G. (eds.). Evaluation in text. Oxford. Return to the main document.
Footnote 10. Palmer F.R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge. Return to the main document.
Footnote 11. Palmer F.R. 2001. Mood and modality. [2. edition].Cambridge. Return to the main document.
Footnote 12. Coates J. 1987. Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. –
Transactions of the Philological Society 85.1: 110-131. Return to the main document.
Footnote 13. Coates J. 1987. Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. –
Transactions of the Philological Society 85.1: 110-131. Return to the main document.
Footnote 14. Stubbs M. 1996. Text and corpus analysis: Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford, Cambridge (USA). Return to the main document.
Footnote 15. Nuyts J. 2001. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. Return to the main document.
Footnote 16. Hunston S., Thompson G. (eds.). 2000. Evaluation in text. Oxford.
Return to the main document.
Footnote 17. Martin J.R., White P.R.R. 2005. The language of evaluation, appraisal in English. London, New York. Return to the main document.
Footnote 18. Chafe W., Nichols J. (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood. Return to the main document.
Footnote 19. Aikhenvald A.Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford, New York. Return to the main document.
Footnote 20. de Haan F. 2001. The relation between modality and evidentiality. – Müller R., Reis M. (eds.). Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 9: Hamburg. Return to the main document.
Footnote 21. de Haan F. 2005. Encoding speaker perspective: Evidentials. – Frajzyngier Z., Rood D., Hodges A. (eds.). Linguistic variation and language theories. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. Return to the main document.
Footnote 22. Wiemer B. 2006. Particles, parentheticals, conjunctions and prepositions as evidentiality markers in contemporary Polish (a first exploratory study). – Studies in Polish Linguistics 3: 5-67. Return to the main document.
Footnote 23. Hyland K. 1996. Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. – Applied Linguistics 17.4: 433. Return to the main document.
Footnote 24. Hyland K. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. Return to the main document.
Footnote 25. Fraser B. 1980. Conversational mitigation. – Journal of Pragmatics 4:
341-350. Return to the main document.
Footnote 26. Czerwionka L. 2010. The mitigation process in Spanish discourse:
Motivations, linguistic analyses, and effects on interaction and interlocutors. [PhD dissertation]. University of Texas. Return to the main document.
Footnote 27. Biber D., Finegan E. 1988. Adverbial stance types in English. – Discourse Processes 11.1: 1-34. Return to the main document.
Footnote 28. Biber D. et al. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English.
Harlow. Return to the main document.
Footnote 29. Du Bois J.W. 2007. The stance triangle. – Englrebretson R. (ed.).
Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 139-182. Return to the main document.
Footnote 30. Keisanen T. 2007. Stancetaking as an interactional activity:
Challenging the prior speaker. – Englebretson R. (ed.). Stancetaking in discourse:
Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 253-281. Return to the main document.
Footnote 31. Rauniomaa M. 2008. Recovery through repetition. Returning to prior talk and taking a stance in American-English and Finnish conversations. – Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B85. Oulu. [urn.fi/urn:isbn:9789514289248]. Return to the main document.
Footnote 32. Edwards G. 2009. Structures of stance in interaction. [MA thesis].
University of Melbourne. Return to the main document.
Footnote 33. Englebretson R. 2007. Stancetaking in discourse: An introduction. – Englebretson R. (ed.). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation,
interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 1. Return to the main document.
Footnote 34. Du Bois J.W. 2007. The stance triangle. – Englrebretson R. (ed.).
Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 139. Return to the main document.
Footnote 35. Du Bois J.W. 2007. The stance triangle. – Englrebretson R. (ed.).
Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 140. Return to the main document.
Footnote 36. Du Bois J.W. 2007. The stance triangle. – Englrebretson R. (ed.).
Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 140. Return to the main document.
Footnote 37. Du Bois J.W. 2007. The stance triangle. – Englrebretson R. (ed.).
Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 142. Return to the main document.
Footnote 38. Keisanen T. 2007. Stancetaking as an interactional activity:
Challenging the prior speaker. – Englebretson R. (ed.). Stancetaking in discourse:
Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 253. Return to the main document.
Footnote 39. White P.R.R. 2003. Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. – Text 23.2: 259. Return to the main document.
Footnote 40. Du Bois J.W. 2007. The stance triangle. – Englrebretson R. (ed.).
Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 163. Return to the main document.
Footnote 41. Du Bois J.W. 2007. The stance triangle. – Englrebretson R. (ed.).
Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 163. Return to the main document.
Footnote 42. Du Bois J.W. 2007. The stance triangle. – Englrebretson R. (ed.).
Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 163. Return to the main document.
Footnote 43. Du Bois J.W. 2007. The stance triangle. – Englrebretson R. (ed.).
Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 153. Return to the main document.
Footnote 44. Du Bois J.W. 2007. The stance triangle. – Englrebretson R. (ed.).
Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 146. Return to the main document.
Footnote 45. Du Bois J.W. 2007. The stance triangle. – Englrebretson R. (ed.).
Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 143. Return to the main document.
Footnote 46. Du Bois J.W. 2007. The stance triangle. – Englrebretson R. (ed.).
Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 143. Return to the main document.
Footnote 47. Ochs E. 1996. Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. – Gumperz J.J., Levinson S.C. (eds.). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: 420. Return to the main document.
Footnote 48. Goodwin Ch. 2007. Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. – Discourse and Society 18.1: 53. Return to the main document.
Footnote 49. Keisanen T. 2007. Stancetaking as an interactional activity:
Challenging the prior speaker. – Englebretson R. (ed.). Stancetaking in discourse:
Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 257. Return to the main document.
Footnote 50. Palmer F.R. 2001. Mood and modality. [2. edition].Cambridge: 8.
Return to the main document.
Footnote 51. Stubbs M. 1996. Text and corpus analysis: Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford, Cambridge (USA): 202. Return to the main
document.
Footnote 52. Radden G., Dirven R. 2007. Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 233. Return to the main document.
Footnote 53. Biber D. et al. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English.
Harlow: 972. Return to the main document.
Footnote 54. Coates J. 1987. Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. – Transactions of the Philological Society 85.1: 130. Return to the main document.
Footnote 55. Brezina V. 2012. Epistemic markers in university advisory sessions.
Towards a local grammar of epistemicity. [PhD dissertation]. University of Auckland.
Return to the main document.
Footnote 56. Simon-Vandenbergen A.M., Aijmer K. 2007. The semantic field of modal certainty. A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin, New York: 2.
Return to the main document.
Footnote 57. Brezina V. 2012. Epistemic markers in university advisory sessions.
Towards a local grammar of epistemicity. [PhD dissertation]. University of Auckland:
16. Return to the main document.
Footnote 58. Lakoff G. 1973. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. – Journal of Philosophical Logic 2.4: 458-508. Return to the main document.
Footnote 59. Holmes J. 1988. Doubt and certainty in ESL Textbooks. – Applied Linguistics 9.1: 21-44. Return to the main document.
Footnote 60. Biber D. et al. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English.
Harlow. Return to the main document.
Footnote 61. Rauniomaa M. 2008. Recovery through repetition. Returning to prior talk and taking a stance in American-English and Finnish conversations. – Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B85. Oulu: 41 [urn.fi/urn:isbn:9789514289248]. Return to the main document.
Footnote 62. Rauniomaa M. 2008. Recovery through repetition. Returning to prior talk and taking a stance in American-English and Finnish conversations. – Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B85. Oulu: 41 [urn.fi/urn:isbn:9789514289248]. Return to the
Footnote 62. Rauniomaa M. 2008. Recovery through repetition. Returning to prior talk and taking a stance in American-English and Finnish conversations. – Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B85. Oulu: 41 [urn.fi/urn:isbn:9789514289248]. Return to the