Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition

By Arie Verhagen. 2007

345 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a677f87fbbec1c2cffa2d203f7fbbf0f3fd4f008

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Sentiment Analysis: An Overview from Linguistics (2016, unknown): “Verhagen (2005) argues that complement clauses are not ‘objects’, but rather the main point of the complex sentence, and that the so-called matrix clause (I think…) instructs the addressee how to construe the complement.”
Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye movements (2013, background): “Indeed, subjective connectives like want are claimed to function as perspective markers (Verhagen, 2005).”
The grammar of engagement I: framework and initial exemplification (2017, background): “Detailed investigations of these communicative resources have been pursued in discourse analysis (e.g., Verhagen, 2005, 2015) and in the conversation-analytic tradition (Heritage, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Sacks, 1987; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974; Schegloff, 2007).”
NegAIT: A new parser for medical text simplification using morphological, sentential and double negation (2017, background): “The second characteristic of negation involves the use of more than one 'mental space' [25], which could also result in spending cognitive resources on negation.”
Construal and Perspectivization (2010, background): “…i.e., only (8) involves two conceptualizers with an opposite epistemic stance towards this proposition (conceptualizer 1 rejects the positive epistemic stance of conceptualizer 2).11 This can observed from the behavior of the phrase on the contrary (Verhagen 2005: 31-32): (10) Mary is not happy.”