SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Adami, E. (2009). ‘We/YouTube’: Exploring sign-making in video-interaction. Visual Communication, 8, 379399.
  • Anderson, J., Beard, F. K., & Walther, J. D. (2010). Turn-taking and the local management of conversation in a highly simultaneous computer-mediated communication system. Language@Internet, 7.
  • Androutsopoulos, J., & Beiβwenger, M. (2008). Introduction: Data and methods in computer-mediated discourse analysis. Language@Internet, 5, Article 9.
  • Aznar, E., Cros, A., & Quintana, L. (1991). Coherencia textual y lectura. Barcelona: Horsori.
  • Baron, N. S. (1998). Letters by phone or speech by other means: The linguistics of email. Language and communication, 18, 133170.
  • Baron, N. S. (2010). Discourse structures in Instant Messaging: The case of utterance breaks. Language@Internet, 7.
  • Berglund,T. Ö. (2009). Disrupted turn adjacency and coherence maintenance in Instant Messaging Conversations. Language@Internet, 6.
  • Beiβwenger, M. (2008). Situated chat analysis as a window to the user's perspective: Aspects of temporal and sequential organization. Language@Internet, 5.
  • Bou-Franch, P. (2010). ‘Comment is free but facts are sacred’: Domestic violence in readers' electronic responses in a newspaper website. I Congreso internacional del Instituto Inter-Universitario de Lenguas Modernas Aplicadas. Valencia, March 2010.
  • Bou-Franch, P. (2011). Openings and closings in Spanish email conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 17721785.
  • Bou-Franch, P., Lorenzo-Dus, N., & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010). The discursive construction of domestic violence in YouTube, International Conference on Gender Violence: Discourses, Contexts and Representations. Valencia, November 2010.
  • Bruxelles, S., & Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2004). Coalitions in polylogues. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 75113.
  • Burgess, J. E., & Green, J. B. (2008). Agency and controversy in the YouTube community. Proceedings IR 9.0: Rethinking communities, rethinking place - Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) conference, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
  • Burgess, J. E., & Green, J. B. (2009). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture. Cambridge: Polity.
  • Danet, B., & Herring, S. C. (2003). Introduction: The multilingual internet, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9, 1.
  • Danet, B., & Herring, S. C. (Eds.). (2007). The multilingual internet: Language, culture and communication online. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Eklundh, K. S. (2010). To quote or not to quote: Setting the context for computer-mediated dialogues. Language@Internet, 7.
  • Erickson, T., Herring, S. C., & Sack, W. (2002). Discourse architectures: Designing and visualizing computer-mediated conversation. Proceedings of ACM CHI 2002.
  • Esparza Torres, M. A. (2006). Pautas para el análisis de la cohesión y la coherencia en textos españoles. RILCE: Revista de Filología Hispánica, 22, 5989.
  • Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010a) “The YouTubification of politics, impoliteness and polarization”. In: R. Taiwo (Ed.) Handbook of research on discourse behavior and digital communication: Language structures and social interaction. IGI Global.
  • Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010b) A genre-approach to the study of (im)politeness. International Review of Pragmatics 2, 4694.
  • Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (forthcoming). Politics, “lies” and YouTube: A genre approach to assessments of im/politeness on Obama's 9/9/2009 presidential address. In L. Fernandez Amaya et al (Eds.). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., Lorenzo-Dus, N., & Bou-Franch, P. (2009) Relational work in anonymous, intercultural communication: A study of (dis)affiliation in YouTube. Symposium on Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication. London, July 2009.
  • Gee, P. (1999). Introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.
  • Gómez González, M. A. (2010). Evaluating lexical cohesion in telephone conversations. Discourse Studies, 12, 599623.
  • Grosjean, M. (2004). From multi-participant talk to genuine polylogue: Shift-change briefing sessions at the hospital. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 2552.
  • Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
  • Harley, D., & Fitzpatrick, G. (2009). YouTube and intergenerational communication: The case of Geriatric1927. Universal Access in the Information Society, 8, 520.
  • Herring, S. C. (1996). Two variants of an electronic message schema. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 81106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4.
  • Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338376). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet, 4.
  • Herring, S. C. (2010a). Computer-mediated conversation: Introduction and overview. Language@Internet, 7.
  • Herring, S. C. (2010b). Who's got the floor in computer-mediated conversation? Edelsky's gender patterns revisited. Language@Internet 7.
  • Herring, S. C., & Kurtz, A. J. (2006). Visualizing dynamic topic analysis. Proceedings of CHI'06. NY: ACM.
  • Herring, S. C., Kutz, D. O., Paolillo, J. C., & Zelenkauskaite, A. (2009). Fast talking, fast shooting: text chat in an online first-person game. Proceedings of the Forty-Second Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-42). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.
  • Herring, S. C., & Nix, C. G. (1997). Is ‘serious chat’ an oxymoron? Pedagogical vs social uses of Internet Relay Chat. Paper presented American Association of Applied Linguistics Annual Conference. Orlando, Fl. March.
  • Holmer, T. (2008). Discourse structure analysis of chat communication. Language@Internet, 5.
  • Honeycutt, C. & Herring, S. C. (2009). Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. Proceedings of the Forty-Second Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-42). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.
  • Hutchby, I. (2006). Media talk: Conversation analysis and the study of broadcasting. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  • Jones, G., & Schieffelin, B. (2009). Talking text and talking back: ‘my BFF Jill’ from Boob Tube to YouTube. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 10501079.
  • Kerbrat-Orecchioni, K. (2004). Introducing polylogue. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 124.
  • Korolija, N. (2000). Coherence-inducing strategies in conversations amongst the aged. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 425462.
  • Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on YouTube. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, Article 18.
  • Lapadat, J. C. (2007). Discourse devices used to establish community, increase coherence, and negotiate agreement in an online university course. Journal of Distance Education, 21(3): 5992.
  • Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I., & Kelly, K. (2009). New media: A critical introduction. London: Routledge.
  • López Alonso, C., & Séré, A. (2001). La lectura en lengua extranjera: el caso de las lenguas románicas. Hamburge: Helmut Burke Verlag.
  • Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2009). Anonymity and impoliteness – a comparative study of Facebook and YouTube. Applied Linguistics Research Seminar Series, Swansea, March 2009.
  • Lorenzo-Dus, N, Garcés-Blitvich, P., & Bou Franch, P. (2009) Am I detecting some sarcasm from U???: Impoliteness in the responses to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube video. II Linguistic Impoliteness and Rudeness (LIAR) Symposium. Lancaster, July 2009.
  • Lorenzo-Dus, N., Garcés-Blitvich, P., & Bou Franch, P. (2011) On-line polylogues and impoliteness: the case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube video. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 25782593.
  • Marcoccia, M. (2004). On-line polylogues: Conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 115145.
  • Markman, K. M. (2006). Computer-mediated conversation: The organization of talk in chat-based virtual team meetings. (Doctoral dissertation).
  • May, A. (2008). Campaign 2008: It's on YouTube. Nieman Reports, Summer, 2425.
  • Nilsen, M., & Mäkitalo, A. (2010). Towards a conversational culture? How participants establish strategies for co-ordinating chat postings in the context of in-service training. Discourse Studies, 12(1): 90102.
  • Paolillo, J. C. (2008). Structure and network in the YouTube core. Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
  • Papacharissi, Z. (Ed.). (2011). A networked self: Identity, community and culture on social network sites. New York: Routledge.
  • Sacks, H. E., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696735.
  • Sannino, A. (2006). Analyzing discontinuous speech in EU conversations: A methodological proposal. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 543566.
  • Scannell, P. (1991). Introduction: The relevance of talk. In P. Scannell (Ed.), Broadcast talk (pp. 113). London: Sage.
  • Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 10751095.
  • Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), Conversational organization and its development (pp. 51-77). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Simpson, J. (2005). Meaning-making online: Discourse and CMC in a language learning community. In A. Méndez-Vilas, B., González-Pereira, J., Mesa González, & J. A. Mesa González (Eds.), Recent research developments in learning technologies. Badajoz: Formatex.
  • Tanskanen, S. (2006). Collaborating towards coherence. Lexical cohesion in English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Tolson, A. (2010). A new authenticity? Communicative practices on YouTube. Critical Discourse Studies, 7, 4, 277289.
  • Traverso, V. (2004). Interlocutive ‘crowding’ and ‘splitting’ in polylogues: The case of a researchers' meeting. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 5374.
  • Woerner, S. L., Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Conversational coherence in Instant Messaging and getting work done. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
  • Yates, S. J. (2000). Computer-mediated communication: The future of the letter? In D. Barton, & N. Hall (Eds.), Letter writing as a social practice (pp. 233251). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
  • Zelenkauskaite, A., & Herring, S. C. (2008). Television-mediated conversation: Coherence in Italian iTV SMS chat. Proceedings of the Forty-First Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.