[Adar, Eytan, Li Zhang, Lada A. Adamic and Rajan M. Lukose. 2004. Implicit structure and the dynamics of blogspace. Workshop on the Weblogging Ecosystem 13 (1): 16989–16995.]Search in Google Scholar
[Agarwal, Nitin and Huan Liu. 2008. Blogosphere: Research issues, tools, and applications. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 10 (1): 18–31.10.1145/1412734.1412737]Search in Google Scholar
[Anand, Pranav, Marilyn Walker, Rob Abbott, Jean E. Fox Tree, Robeson Bowmani and Michael Minor. 2011. Cats rule and dogs drool!: Classifying stance in online debate. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity and Sentiment Analysis, WASSA ’11, 1–9. Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bassiouney, Reem. 2012. Politicizing identity: Code choice and stance-taking during the Egyptian revolution. Discourse & Society 23 (2): 107–126.10.1177/0957926511431514]Search in Google Scholar
[Benveniste, Émile. 1971. Subjectivity in language. In M. E. Meek (ed.). Problems in general linguistics, 223–230. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Berman, Ruth, Hrafnhildur Ragnarsdóttir and Sven Strömqvist. 2002. Discourse stance: Written and spoken language. Written Language & Literacy 5 (2): 253–287.10.1075/wll.5.2.06ber]Search in Google Scholar
[Biber, Douglas. 2006. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2): 97–116.10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001]Search in Google Scholar
[Cabrejas-Peñuelas, Ana B. and Mercedes Díez-Prados. 2014. Positive self-evaluation versus negative other-evaluation in the political genre of pre-election debates. Discourse & Society 25 (2): 159–185.10.1177/0957926513515601]Search in Google Scholar
[Cataldi, Cataldi, Mario, Luigi Di Caro and Claudio Schifanella. 2010. Emerging topic detection on twitter based on temporal and social terms evaluation. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Workshop on Multimedia Data Mining 4, 1–10. Washington, DC, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.10.1145/1814245.1814249]Search in Google Scholar
[Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2012. Performing self on the witness stand: Stance and relational work in expert witness testimony. Discourse & Society 23 (5): 465–486.10.1177/0957926512441111]Search in Google Scholar
[Chiluwa, Innocent and Presley Ifukor. 2015. ‘War against our Children’: Stance and evaluation in #BringBackOurGirls campaign discourse on Twitter and Facebook. Discourse & Society 26 (3): 267–296.10.1177/0957926514564735]Search in Google Scholar
[Conrad, Susan and Douglas Biber. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In G. Thompson (ed.). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 56–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Downing, Angela. 2001. “Surely you knew!”: Surely as a marker of evidentiality and stance. Functions of Language 8 (2): 251–282.10.1075/fol.8.2.05dow]Search in Google Scholar
[Du Bois, John. 2007. The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (ed.). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.164.07du]Search in Google Scholar
[Ekberg, Lena and Carita Paradis. 2009. Editorial: Evidentiality in language and cognition. Functions of Language 16 (1): 5–7.10.1075/fol.16.1.02ekb]Search in Google Scholar
[Englebretson, Robert. 2007. Stancetaking in discourse: An introduction. In R. Englebretson (ed.). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 1–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.164.02eng]Search in Google Scholar
[Facchinetti, Roberta, Frank Palmer and Manfred Krug (eds.). 2003. Modality in contemporary English (Topics in English Linguistics 44). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110895339]Search in Google Scholar
[Faulkner, Adam. 2014. Automated classification of stance in student essays: An approach using stance target information and the Wikipedia link-based measure. Science 376 (12): 86.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ferreira, William and Andreas Vlachos. 2016. Emergent: A novel data-set for stance classification. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 1163–1168. Sheffield, UK.]Search in Google Scholar
[Fuoli, Matteo. 2012. Assessing social responsibility: A quantitative analysis of Appraisal in BP’s and IKEA’s social reports. Discourse & Communication 6 (1): 55–81.10.1177/1750481311427788]Search in Google Scholar
[Glynn, Dylan and Mette Sjölin. 2015. Subjectivity and epistemicity: Corpus, discourse, and literary approaches to stance. In D. Glynn and M. Sjölin (eds.). Corpus, discourse, and literary approaches to stance (Lund Studies in English 117), 360–410. Lund: Lund University.]Search in Google Scholar
[Granger, Sylviane. 2003. The international corpus of learner English: A new resource for foreign language learning and teaching and second language acquisition research. Tesol Quarterly 37 (3): 538–546.10.2307/3588404]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Gray, Bethany and Douglas Biber. 2014. Stance markers. In K. Aijmer and C. Rühlemann (eds.). Corpus pragmatics: A handbook, 219–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139057493.012]Search in Google Scholar
[Gu, Xiang. 2015. Evidentiality, subjectivity and ideology in the Japanese history textbook. Discourse & Society 26 (1): 29–51.10.1177/0957926514543225]Search in Google Scholar
[Hasan, Kazi Saidul and Vincent Ng. 2013a. Stance classification of ideological debates: Data, models, features, and constraints. In Proceeding of IJCNLP 2013: The 6th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, 1348–1356. Nagoya, Japan.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hasan, Kazi Saidul and Vincent Ng. 2013b. Frame semantics for stance classification. In Proceedings of CoNLL 2013: The Seventeenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, 124–132. Sofia, Bulgaria.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hasan, Kazi Saidul and Vincent Ng. 2013c. Extra-linguistic constraints on stance recognition in ideological debates. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol. 2: Short Papers), 816–821. Sofia, Bulgaria.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hasan, Kazi Saidul and Vincent Ng. 2014. Why are you taking this stance? Identifying and classifying reasons in ideological debates. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 751–762. Doha, Qatar.10.3115/v1/D14-1083]Search in Google Scholar
[Hunston, Susan and Geoffrey Thompson (eds.). 2000. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hyland, Ken. 2005. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7 (2): 173–192.10.1177/1461445605050365]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Jiang, Feng Kevin. 2017. Stance and voice in academic writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22 (1): 85–106.10.1075/ijcl.22.1.04jia]Search in Google Scholar
[Kanté, Issa. 2010. Mood and modality in finite noun complement clauses: A French-English contrastive study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15 (2): 267–290.10.1075/ijcl.15.2.06kan]Search in Google Scholar
[Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003. Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 115). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.115]Search in Google Scholar
[Kessler, Brett, Geoffrey Numberg and Hinrich Schütze. 1997. Automatic detection of text genre. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and Eighth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 32–38. Association for Computational Linguistics.10.3115/976909.979622]Search in Google Scholar
[Kucher, Kostiantyn, Andreas Kerren, Carita Paradis and Magnus Sahlgren. 2016a. Visual analysis of text annotations for stance classification with ALVA. In EuroVis 2016: The 18th EG/VGTC Conference on Visualization, 49–51. Eurographics – European Association for Computer Graphics.]Search in Google Scholar
[Kucher, Kostiantyn, Teri Schamp-Bjerede, Andreas Kerren, Carita Paradis and Magnus Sahlgren. 2016b. Visual analysis of online social media to open up the investigation of stance phenomena. Information Visualization 15 (2): 93–116.10.1177/1473871615575079]Search in Google Scholar
[Kucher, Kostiantyn, Carita Paradis, Magnus Sahlgren and Andreas Kerren. 2017. Active learning and visual analytics for stance classification with ALVA. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 7 (3): 1–31.10.1145/3132169]Search in Google Scholar
[Martin, James R. and Peter R. White. 2003. The language of evaluation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.]Search in Google Scholar
[Mathioudakis, Michael and Nick Koudas. 2010. Twittermonitor: Trend detection over the twitter stream. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, 1155–1158. Association for Computing Machinery.10.1145/1807167.1807306]Search in Google Scholar
[Mohammad, Saif M., Parinaz Sobhani and Svetlana Kiritchenko. 2016. Stance and sentiment in tweets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.01655.]Search in Google Scholar
[Mukherjee, Arjun and Bing Liu. 2010. Improving gender classification of blog authors. In Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 207–217. Association for Computational Linguistics.]Search in Google Scholar
[Nguyen, Dong, Rilana Gravel, Dolf Trieschnigg and Theo Meder. 2013. “How old do you think I am?” A study of language and age in Twitter. In Proceedings of the Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 439–448. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.10.1609/icwsm.v7i1.14381]Search in Google Scholar
[Pak, Alexander and Patrick Paroubek. 2010. Twitter as a corpus for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. In Proceedings of The Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) (Vol. 10), 1320–1326. Valletta, Malta.]Search in Google Scholar
[Pang, Bo and Lillian Lee. 2008. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 2 (1–2): 1–135.10.1561/1500000011]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Paradis, Carita. 2003. Between epistemic modality and degree: The case of really. In R. Facchinetti, F. Palmer and M. Krug (eds.). Modality in contemporary English (Topics in English Linguistics 44), 191–222. Berlin: DeGruyter.10.1515/9783110895339.191]Search in Google Scholar
[Park, Jaram, Young Min Baek and Meeyoung Cha. 2014. Cross-cultural comparison of nonverbal cues in emoticons on twitter: Evidence from big data analysis. Journal of Communication 64 (2): 333–354.10.1111/jcom.12086]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Paterson, Laura L., Laura Coffey-Glover and David Peplow. 2016. Negotiating stance within discourses of class: Reactions to Benefits Street. Discourse & Society 27 (2): 195–214.10.1177/0957926515611558]Search in Google Scholar
[Peersman, Claudia, Walter Daelemans and Leona Van Vaerenbergh. 2011. Predicting age and gender in online social networks. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Search and Mining User-Generated Contents, 37–44. Association for Computational Linguistics.10.1145/2065023.2065035]Search in Google Scholar
[Persing, Isaac and Vincent Ng, V. 2016. Modeling stance in student essays. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2174–2184. Association for Computational Linguistics.10.18653/v1/P16-1205]Search in Google Scholar
[Põldvere, Nele, Matteo Fuoli and Carita Paradis. 2016. A study of dialogic expansion and contraction in spoken discourse using corpus and experimental techniques. Corpora 11 (2): 191–225.10.3366/cor.2016.0092]Search in Google Scholar
[Precht, Kristen. 2003. Stance moods in spoken English: Evidentiality and aspect in British and American conversation. Text (Special issue: Negotiating Heteroglossia: Social Perspectives on Evaluation) 23 (2): 239–257.10.1515/text.2003.010]Search in Google Scholar
[Rajadesingan, Ashwin and Huan Liu. 2014. Identifying users with opposing opinions in Twitter debates. In International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling, and Prediction, 153–160. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-05579-4_19]Search in Google Scholar
[Read, Jonathon and John Carroll. 2012. Annotating expressions of appraisal in English. Language Resources and Evaluation 46 (3): 421–447.10.1007/s10579-010-9135-7]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Saurí, Roser and James Pustejovsky. 2009. FactBank: A corpus annotated with event factuality. Language Resources and Evaluation 43 (3): 227–268.10.1007/s10579-009-9089-9]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Scheffé, Henry. 1999 [1959]. The analysis of variance. New York City: John Wiley & Sons.]Search in Google Scholar
[Schwartz, Andrew, Johannes Eichstaedt, Margaret Kern, Lukasz Dziurzynski, Stephanie Ramones, Megha Agrawal, Achal Shah, Michal Kosinski, David Stillwell, Martin Seligman and Lyle Ungar. 2013. Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: The open-vocabulary approach. PLOSONE 8 (9): e73791.]Search in Google Scholar
[Simaki, Vasiliki. 2015. Sociolinguistic research on web textual data (Doctoral dissertation, in Greek). University of Patras, Greece. Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/10889/9422]Search in Google Scholar
[Simaki, Vasiliki, Christina Aravantinou, Iosif Mporas and Vasileios Megalooikonomou. 2015a. Using sociolinguistic inspired features for gender classification of web authors. In International Conference on Text, Speech, and Dialogue (TSD) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9302), 587–594. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-24033-6_66]Search in Google Scholar
[Simaki, Vasiliki, Christina Aravantinou, Iosif Mporas and Vasileios Megalooikonomou. 2015b. Automatic estimation of web bloggers’ age using regression models. In International Conference on Speech and Computer (SPECOM), 113–120. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-23132-7_14]Search in Google Scholar
[Simaki, Vasiliki, Christina Aravantinou, Iosif Mporas, Marianna Kondyli and Vasileios Megalooikonomou. 2017a. Sociolinguistic features for author gender identification: From qualitative evidence to quantitative analysis. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 24 (1): 65–84.10.1080/09296174.2016.1226430]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Simaki Vasiliki, Carita Paradis and Andreas Kerren. 2017b. Stance classification in texts from blogs on the 2016 British Referendum. In A. Karpov, R. Potapova and I. Mporas (eds.). Speech and computer. SPECOM 2017 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10458), 700–709. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-66429-3_70]Search in Google Scholar
[Simaki, Vasiliki, Carita Paradis, Maria Skeppstedt, Magnus Sahlgren, Kostiantyn Kucher and Andreas Kerren. 2017c. Annotating speaker stance in discourse: The Brexit Blog Corpus. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. DOI:10.1515/cllt-2016-006010.1515/cllt-2016-0060]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Somasundaran, Swapna and Janyce Wiebe. 2010. Recognizing stances in ideological on-line debates. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Computational Approaches to Analysis and Generation of Emotion in Text, 116–124. Association for Computational Linguistics.]Search in Google Scholar
[Sridhar, Dhanya, Lise Getoor and Marilyn Walker. 2014. Collective stance classification of posts in online debate forums. In Proceedings of the Joint Workshop on Social Dynamics and Personal Attributes in Social Media, 109–117. Baltimore, Maryland, USA.10.3115/v1/W14-2715]Search in Google Scholar
[Stamatatos, Efstathios. 2009. A survey of modern authorship attribution methods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60 (3): 538–556.10.1002/asi.21001]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Stamatatos, Efstathios, Nikos Fakotakis and George Kokkinakis. 2000. Automatic authorship attribution. In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 158–164. Association for Computational Linguistics.10.3115/977035.977057]Search in Google Scholar
[Stamatatos, Efstathios, Nikos Fakotakis and George Kokkinakis. 2001. Computer-based authorship attribution without lexical measures. Computers and the Humanities 35 (2): 193–214.10.1023/A:1002681919510]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Taboada, Maite. 2016. Sentiment analysis: An overview from linguistics. Annual Review of Linguistics 2: 325–347.10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040518]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Tracy, Karen. 2011. What’s in a name? Stance markers in oral argument about marriage laws. Discourse & Communication 5 (1): 65–88.10.1177/1750481310390167]Search in Google Scholar
[Tukey, John W. 1949. Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance. Biometrics 5 (2): 99–114.10.2307/3001913]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Van de Kauter, Marjan, Bart Desmet and Véronique Hoste. 2015. The good, the bad and the implicit: A comprehensive approach to annotating explicit and implicit sentiment. Language Resources and Evaluation 49 (3): 685–720.10.1007/s10579-015-9297-4]Search in Google Scholar
[Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Walker, Marilyn, Pranav Anand, Robert Abbott and Ricky Grant. 2012a. Stance classification using dialogic properties of persuasion. In Proceedings of the 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 592–596. Association for Computational Linguistics.]Search in Google Scholar
[Walker, Marilyn, Pranav Anand, Robert Abbott, Jean E. Fox Tree, Craig Martell and Joseph King. 2012b. That is your evidence?: Classifying stance in online political debate. Decision Support Systems 53 (4): 719–729.10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.032]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Walker, Marilyn, Jean E. Fox Tree, Pranav Anand, Robert Abbott and Joseph King. 2012c. A corpus for research on deliberation and debate. In Proceedings of The Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), 812–817. Istanbul, Turkey.]Search in Google Scholar
[White, Peter R. 2003. Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text 23 (2): 259–284.10.1515/text.2003.011]Search in Google Scholar
[Wiebe, Janyce, Theresa Wilson and Claire Cardie. 2005. Annotating expressions of opinions and emotions in language. Language Resources and Evaluation 39 (2): 165–210.10.1007/s10579-005-7880-9]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Wiebe, Janyce, Theresa Wilson, Rebecca Bruce, Matthew Bell and Melanie Martin. 2004. Learning subjective language. Computational Linguistics 30 (3): 277–308.10.1162/0891201041850885]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Zheng, Rong, Jiexun Li, Hisnchun Chen and Zan Huang. 2006. A framework for authorship identification of online messages: Writing-style features and classification techniques. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (3): 378–393.10.1002/asi.20316]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
