Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 567

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance

WHITE, P. R. R.·2003·Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse

Abstract

This article offers a framework for analysing the linguistic resources of intersubjective positioning, meanings which have elsewhere been treated under such headings as modality, polarity, evidentiality, hedging, concession, intensification, attribution and consequentiality.Drawing inspiration from Bakhtin/Vološinov's dialogic perspective, it proposes that this lexicogrammatically diverse grouping can be brought together on discourse semantic grounds, namely that they all provide the means for speakers/ writers to take a stance towards the various points-of-view or social positionings being referenced by the text and thereby to position themselves with respect to the other social subjects who hold those positions.The paper offers a typology of these resources, with categorizations attending to differences in the way the textual voice engages with the alternative voices and/or pointsof-view being referenced or activated by the text.It argues, for example, that these resources can be broadly divided into those which entertain or open up the space for dialogic alternatives and, alternatively, those which suppress or close down the space for such alternation.The typology has emerged from continued research into the interpersonal functionality of discourse, research interested in how language construes social roles and relationships and in the potential of language to operate rhetorically to influence beliefs, attitudes, expectations and modes of interrelating.In order to demonstrate the application of the typology to the exploration of such questions, the paper singles out one issue for close attention-the linguistic mechanisms by which texts naturalise certain value positions and construct for themselves ideal, model or compliant readerships.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/text.2003.011

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Metadata

Authors
WHITE, P. R. R.
Venue
Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse
Published
2003-01-09
Volume
23
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 0165-4888 (ISSN-L)
  • 1613-4117
OpenAlex
W1975927031
Cited by
567
References
16
FWCI
173.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1515/text.2003.011
The paper
WHITE, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.011

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.