Modal adverbs of certainty in the rhetoric of Advocates General: a dialogic view

AIJMER, K., 2007. Modal adverbs as discourse markers: A bilingual approach to the study of indeed. In: J. Rehbein, Ch. Hohenstein and L. Pietsch, eds. Connectivity in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 329-344.10.1075/hsm.5.19aijSearch in Google Scholar

ANSCOMBRE, J.C. and DUCROT, O., 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. Brussels: Pierre Mardaga.Search in Google Scholar

BARTH-WEINGARTEN, D., 2003. Concession in spoken English. On the realisation of a discourse-pragmatic relation. Tübingen: Narr.Search in Google Scholar

BAKHTIN, M.M., 1981. The dialogic imagination. Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin. Edited by M. Holquist. Translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.Search in Google Scholar

BIBER, D. et al., 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

CHAFE, W.L., 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In: W.L. Chafe and J. Nichols, eds. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood: Ablex, pp. 261-272.Search in Google Scholar

COUPER-KUHLEN, E. and THOMPSON, S.A., 2000. Concessive patterns in conversation. In: E. Couper-Kuhlen and B. Kortmann, eds. Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 381-410.10.1515/9783110219043.4.381Search in Google Scholar

EDMONDSON, W.J. 2014. The emergence of discourse analysis as a disciplinary field: philosophical, pedagogic and linguistic approaches. In: K.P. Schneider and A. Barron, eds. Pragmatics of discourse. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 65-95.Search in Google Scholar

FETZER, A., 2014. Conceptualising discourse. In: K.P. Schneider and A. Barron, eds. Pragmatics of discourse. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 35-61.10.1515/9783110214406-003Search in Google Scholar

GEERAERTS, D., 2006. Prospects and problems of prototype theory. In: D. Geeraerts, ed. Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 141-167.10.1515/9783110199901.141Search in Google Scholar

HYLAND, K., 2005. Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 173-192.10.1177/1461445605050365Search in Google Scholar

QUINTILIAN, 1921‒1933.The institutio oratoria of Quintilian. New York: Putnam’s Sons.Search in Google Scholar

SALMI-TOLONEN, T., 2005. Persuasion in judicial argumentation: The opinions of the Advocates General at the European Court of Justice. In: H. Halmari and T. Virtanen, eds. Persuasion across genres. A linguistic approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 59-101.10.1075/pbns.130.06salSearch in Google Scholar

SCHWENTER, S. and TRAUGOTT, E.C., 2000. Invoking scalarity: The development of in fact. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, vol. 1, pp. 7-25.10.1075/jhp.1.1.04schSearch in Google Scholar

SIMON-VANDENBERGEN, A.M. and AIJMER, K., 2007. The semantic field of modal certainty. A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198928Search in Google Scholar

SIMON-VANDENBERGEN, A.M., WHITE, P. and AIJMER, K., 2007. Presupposition and ‘takingfor- granted’ in mass communicated political argument. An illustration from British, Flemish and Swedish political colloquy. In: A. Fetzer and G.E. Lauerbach, eds. Political discourse in the media. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 31-74.10.1075/pbns.160.05simSearch in Google Scholar

SZCZYRBAK, M., 2016. Concessive marking revisited: but in courtroom talk. Paper presented at 3rd International Conference on Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Approaches to Text Structuring. València, Spain, 24-35 January.Search in Google Scholar

WHITE, P., 2003. Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 259-284.10.1515/text.2003.011Search in Google Scholar