oa Argumentatie, zelfpromotie of beide? Een analyse van de tweets van Nederlandstalige politici en experten over de covid-19-pandemie¹

References

1. Agha, A. (2007). Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Amossy, R. (2001). Ethos at the crossroads of disciplines: Rhetoric, pragmatics, sociology. Poetics Today, 22, pp. 1-23.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Amossy, R. (2017). Understanding political issues through argumentation analysis. In R.Wodak & B.Forchtner (Red) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics (pp. 262-275). Abingdon: Routledge.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Aristoteles (2004). Retorica. (Vertaling M.Huys & J. M.van Ophuijsen.) Groningen: Historische Uitgeverij.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Braet, A. C. (1992). Ethos, pathos and logos in Aristotle’s Rhetoric: A re-examination. Argumentation, 6, 307 – 320.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Brinton, A. (1986), Ēthotic Argument. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 3, 245-258.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Coesemans, R. & De Cock, B. (2017). Self-reference by politicians on Twitter: Strategies to adapt to 140 characters. Journal of Pragmatics, 116, 37-50.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Cougnon, L.-A. & de Viron, L. (2021). Covid-19 et communication de crise. Focus linguistique sur les tweets francophones de Belgique. In S.Cotelli Kureth, M.Dubois & A.Kamber (Red). La linguistique appliquée à l’ère digitale, Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée, http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/235422.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Cysouw, M. (2003). The Paradigmatic Structure of Person Marking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Dayter, D. (2014). Self-praise in microblogging. Journal of Pragmatics, 61, 91-102.
    [Google Scholar]
11. De Cock, B. (2011). Why we can be you: the use of 1st person plural forms with hearer reference in English and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2762-2775.
    [Google Scholar]
12. De Cock, B. & Roginsky, S. (2015). Identités discursives sur Twitter: construction de l’identité de député européen en période pré-électorale. Comparaison entre la France, l’Espagne et le Royaume-Uni. In F.Liénard & S.Zlitni (Eds.) Communication électronique: enjeux, stratégies et opportunités (pp.137-148). Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.
    [Google Scholar]
13. van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Fairclough, I. en N.Fairclough (2012). Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. Londen, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Fricker, M. (1998), Rational authority and social power: Towards a truly social epistemology. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (New Series), 98, pp. 159-177.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Hyland, K. (2003). Self-citation and self-reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 251-259.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Johnstone, B. (2018). Discourse Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons
    [Google Scholar]
19. van Laar, J. A. (2010). Ambiguity in argument. Argument & Computation, 1, 125 – 146.
    [Google Scholar]
20. van Laar, J. A. & Krabbe, E. C. W. (2021). Turning the tables: Up- and downgrading of evaluative terms in public controversies. Journal of Applied Logics — IfCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications, 8, 89-113.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Mühlhäusler, P. & Harré, R. (1990). Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Nguyen, C. T. (2020). Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme, 17, 141-161.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Parsons, S., Atkinson, K., Li, Z., McBurney, P., Sklar, E., Singh, M., Haigh, K., Levitt, K. en Rowe, J. (2014). Argument schemes for reasoning about trust. Argument and Computation, 5, 160–190, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2014.913075.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Roginsky, S. & De Cock, B. (2015). Faire campagne sur Twitter. Modalités d’énonciation et mises en récit des candidats à l’élection européenne. Les Cahiers du Numérique, 11, 119-144.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Roginsky, S. (2015). Les députés européens sur « Facebook » et « Twitter », une ethnographie des usages. Communication et Langages: Presse, television, radio, publicite, edition, graphisme, formation, sociologie, 183, 83-109.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Siewierska, A. (2004). Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Thompson, A. (2016). Journalists and Trump voters live in separate online bubbles, MIT analysis shows. Vice. December8, 2016. https://www.vice.com/en/article/d3xamx/journalists-and-trump-voters-live-in-separate-online-bubbles-mit-analysis-shows.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Walton, D.N. (1984). Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies. Lanham, London: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Walton, D.N. (1999). Ethotic arguments and fallacies: The credibility function in multi-agent dialogue systems. Pragmatics & Cognition, 7, 177-203.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Walton, D.N., Reed, C. & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Wodak, R. & Forchtner, B. (2017). Introducing the language-politics nexus. In R.Wodak & B.Forchtner (Red) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics (pp. 1-14). Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]