The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development

The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 1-280

  Brinton, Laurel J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922887398     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511551789     Document Type: Book

References (331)

1. Benson, Larry D.31987. The Riverside Chaucer. 3rd edn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
2. Evans, G. Blakemore. 21997. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd edn. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin.
3. Krapp, George Philip and Elliot van Kirk Dobbie. 1931–1952. The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records: A Collective Edition. 6 vols. New York: Columbia University Press.
4. Sweet, Henry. 1883. King Alfred’s Orosius.Partl. Old English Text and Latin Original. London: N. Trübner & Co.
5. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 42000. 4th edn. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin.
6. Bosworth, Joseph and T. Northcote Toller. 1898. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Burchfield, R. W., ed.31996. The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage. 3rd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
8. Canadian Oxford Dictionary.22004. Ed. by Katherine Barber. 2nd edn. Toronto, Oxford, and New York: Oxford University Press.
9. Dictionary of American Regional English, Vol. III. 1996. Ed. by Frederic G. Cassidy and Joan Houston Hall. Cambridge, MA and London: Belknap Press for Harvard University Press.
10. Encarta World English Dictionary. 1999. Ed. by Anne H. Soukhanov et al. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
11. The English Dialect Dictionary. 1904. Ed. by Joseph Wright. London: Henry Frowde for the English Dialect Society and New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
12. Evans, Bergen and Cornelia Evans. 1957 A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage. New York: Random House.
13. Fowler, H. W. 21965. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. 2nd edn. revised by Sir Ernest Gowers. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
14. Lewis, C. T. 1984. Elementary Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Merriam-Webster online. www.merriam-webster.com/
16. NTC’s American Idioms Dictionary 21996. Ed. by Richard A. Spears. 2nd edn. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
17. Oxford English Dictionary. 21989. 2nd edn. Prepared by J. A. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner. Oxford: Clarendon.
18. Oizumi, Akio, ed. 1991–1992. A Complete Concordance to the Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Alpha-Omega, Reihe C, Englische Autoren. Kunihiro Miki prog. 10 vols. Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann.
19. Schmidt, Alexander. 1971 [1902]. Shakespeare Lexicon and Quotation Dictionary. 3rd edn. revised and enlarged by Gregor Sarrazin. [Reprint: New York: Dover.]
20. Spevack, Martin. 1969. A Complete and Systematic Concordance to the Works of Shakespeare. 9 vols. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.
21. Watkins, Calvert, ed. 22000. The American Heritage Dictionary of the Indo-European Roots. 2nd edn. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin.
22. Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage. 1989. Ed. by E. Ward Gilman. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
23. British National Corpus www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/ Searched using VIEW (Variation in English Words and Phrases) developed by Mark Davies, Brigham Young University. http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/
24. Canadian Newsstand. 2006. Micromedia Proquest. www.proquest.com/products_pq/descriptions/canadian_newsstand.shtml
25. Dictionary of Old English Corpus in Electronic Form. 2004. Ed. by Antonette di Paulo Healey. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada/National Endowment for the Humanities. http://ets.umdl.umich.edu/o/oec/
26. Early English Books Online. Chadwyck-Healey Ltd. http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home
27. Early English Prose Fiction. Ed. by Holger Klein et al.Chadwyck-Healey Ltd. http://collections.chadwyck.com/home/home_eepf.jsp
28. Eighteenth-Century Fiction. Ed. Judith Hawley et al.Chadwyck-Healey Ltd. http://collections.chadwyck.com/home/home_c18f.jsp
29. English Drama. Ed. by John Barnard et al.Chadwyck-Healey Ltd. http://collections.chadwyck.com/home/home_ed.jsp
30. ICAME (International Computer Archives of Modern and Medieval English) Collection of English Language Corpora. 1999. Compiled by Knut Hofland, Anne Lindebjerg, and Jörn Thunestvedt. 2nd edn. CD-ROM. Bergen: Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities. (See http://khnt.hit.uib.no/icame/manuals/)
31. The Australian Corpus of English
32. The Freiburg-LOB Corpus of British English
33. The Freiburg-Brown Corpus of American English
34. The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts, Diachronic Part
35. The Lampeter Corpus of Early Modern English Tracts
36. The Wellington Corpus of Written New Zealand English
37. Middle English Dictionary. Electronic version available at the Middle English Compendium http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mec/
38. Oxford English Dictionary. 32000-. 3rd edn. online (in progress). Oxford: Oxford University Press. http//dictionary.oed.com/.
39. Strathy Corpus of Canadian English. Strathy Unit, Queen’s University. http://post.queensu.ca/strathy/topics/about_the_unit.html
40. University of Toronto English Library. 1998. www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/
41. University of Virginia Electronic Text Center, Modern English Collection http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/modeng/modeng0.browse.html
42. The Works of the Bard. http://www.cs.usyd.edu.au/~matty/Shakespeare/
43. Aarts, Bas and Charles F. Meyer, eds. 1995. The Verb in Contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44. Aarts, Jan and Flor Aarts. 1995. Find and want: A corpus-based case study in verb complementation. In Aarts and Meyer, 159–182.
45. Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. (Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 10.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
46. Aijmer, Karin 1998. Epistemic predicates in contrast. In Stig Johansson and Signe Oksefjell, eds., Corpora and Cross-Linguistic Research: Theory, Method and Case Studies, 277–295. (Language and Computers, Studies in Practical Linguistics, 24.) Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
47. Aijmer, Karin 1997. I think —an English modal particle. In Toril Swan and Olaf Jansen Westvik, eds., Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, 1–47. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 99.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
48. Aijmer, Karin 1996. Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. (Studies in Language & Linguistics.) London and New York: Longman.
49. Aijmer, Karin 1988. “Now may we have a word on this”: The use of now as a discourse particle. In Merja Kytö, Ossi Ihalainen, and Matti Rissanen, eds., Corpus Linguistics, Hard and Soft: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, 15–34. (Language and Computers, 2.) Amsterdam: Rodopi.
50. Aijmer, Karin and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, eds. 2006. Pragmatic Markers in Contrast. (Studies in Pragmatics, 2.) Amsterdam: Elsevier.
51. Akimoto, Minoji. 2007. On rivalry in the history of English. Paper presented at the IAUPE Conference, Lund, Sweden.
52. Akimoto, Minoji. 2002. On the grammaticalization of the parenthetical “I’m afraid.” In Jacek Fisiak, ed., Studies in English Historical Linguistics and Philology: A Festschrift for Akio Oizumi, 1–9. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
53. Akimoto, Minoji. 2000. The grammaticalization of the verb ‘pray.’ In Fischer, Rosenbach, and Stein, eds., 67–84.
54. Akimoto, Minoji. 1998. Some principles of idiomatization. In Jacek Fisiak and Akio Oizumi, eds., English Historical Linguistics and Philology in Japan, 143–154. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 109.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
55. Algeo, John. 2006. British or American English? A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns. (Studies in English Language.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56. Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. On doing as you please. In Jucker, ed., 275–309.
57. American Dialect Society Discussion List (ADS-L). www.americandialect.org/adslarchive.shtml.
58. Andersen, Gisle. 2000. The role of the pragmatic marker like in utterance interpretation. In Gisle Andersen and Thorstein Fretheim, eds., Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude, 17–38. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 79.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
59. Andersen, Gisle.1998. The pragmatic marker like from a Relevance-theoretic perspective. In Jucker and Ziv, eds., 147–169.
60. Andersen, Gisle.1997. They like wanna see like how we talk and all that. The use of like as a discourse marker in London teenage speech. In Magnus Ljung, ed., Corpus-based Studies in English: Papers from the Seventeenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, 37–48. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics, 20.) Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
61. Anderson, Lloyd B. 1986. Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries. In Chafe and Nichols, eds., 273–312.
62. Anttila, Raimo. 1989 [1972]. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 6.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
63. Asher, Nicholas. 2000. Truth conditional discourse semantics for parentheticals. Journal of Semantics17:31–50.
64. Baghdikian, Sonia. 1977. To say and to tell in Present-day British English. Studia Neophilologica 49:3–18.
65. Banfield, Ann. 1982. Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction. Boston, London, Melbourne, and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
66. Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word Formation. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67. Bazzanella, Carla. 2006. Discourse markers in Italian: Towards a “compositional” meaning. In Fischer, ed., 449–464.
68. Bazzanella, Carla. 2003. Discourse markers and politeness in Old Italian. In Gudrun Held, ed., Partikeln und Höflichkeit, 247–268. Wien: Peter Lang.
69. Benveniste, Émile. 1971 [1958]. Subjectivity in language. In Mary Elizabeth Meek, trans., Problems in General Linguistics, 223–230. (Miami Linguistics Series, 8.) Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press. (Originally published in Journal de psychologie 55 [1958]:267ff.)
70. Bergs, Alexander and Gabriele Diewald, eds. Forthcoming. Constructions and Language Change. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
71. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan, eds. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Educational.
72. Blake, Norman F. 2002. On Shakespeare’s informal language. Journal of Historical Pragmatics3:179–204.
73. Blake, Norman F. 1992. Why and what in Shakespeare. In Toshiyuki Takamiya and Richard Beadle, eds., Chaucer to Shakespeare: Essays in Honour of Shinsuke Ando, 179–193. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.
74. Blakemore, Diane. 2006. Divisions of labour: The analysis of parentheticals. Lingua 116:1670–1687.
75. Blakemore, Diane. 2005. And-parentheticals. Journal of Pragmatics37:1165–1181.
76. Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 99.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
77. Blakemore, Diane. 1996. Are apposition markers discourse markers? Journal of Linguistics32:325–347.
78. Blakemore, Diane. 1990/1991. Performatives and parentheticals. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society91:197–213.
79. Blakemore, Diane. 1988. So as a constraint on relevance. In Ruth M. Kempson, ed., Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality, 183–195. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
80. Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
81. Blyth, Carl Jr., Sigrid Recktenwald, and Jenny Wang. 1990. I’m like “say what.?!”: A new quotative in American oral narrative. American Speech65:215–227.
82. Bolinger, Dwight. 1989. Intonation and its Uses: Melody in Grammar and Discourse. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
83. Borgmeier, Raimund, Herbert Grabes, and Andreas H. Jucker, eds. 1998. Anglistentag 1997 Giessen: Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
84. Brinton, Laurel J. 2002. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization reconsidered: On the late use of temporal adverbs. In Teresa Fanego, María José López-Couso, and Javier Pérez-Guerra, eds., English Historical Syntax and Morphology, 67–97. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 223.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
85. Brinton, Laurel J. 2001. Historical discourse analysis. In Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton, eds., The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 138–160. Maldon, MA and Oxford: Blackwell.
86. Brinton, Laurel J. 1999. ‘Whilom, as olde stories tellen us’: The discourse marker whilom in Middle English. In A. E. Christa Canitz and Gernot R. Wieland, eds., From Arabye to Engelond: Medieval Studies in Honour of Mahmoud Manzalaoui on his 75th Birthday, 175–199. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
87. Brinton, Laurel J. 1998. “The flowers are lovely; only, they have no scent”: The evolution of a pragmatic marker. In Borgmeier, Grabes, and Jucker, eds., 9–33.
88. Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. (Topics in English Linguistics, 19.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
89. Brinton, Laurel J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization in Language Change. (Research Surveys in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
90. Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987 [1978]. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics, 4.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
91. Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman. 1989. Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society18:159–212.
92. Burton-Roberts, N. 22006. Parentheticals. In Keith Brown et al., eds., Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 179–182. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
93. Busse, Ulrich. 2002. Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus: Morpho-Syntactic Variability of Second Person Pronouns. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 106.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
94. Bussmann, Hadumod. 1996. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Trans. and ed. Gregory Trauth and Kerstin Kazzazi. London and New York: Routledge.
95. Butters, Ronald R. 1982. Editor’s note. American Speech57:149.
96. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
97. Campbell, Lyle, ed. 2001. Grammaticalization: A critical assessment. Language Sciences23.2–3.
98. Chafe, Wallace. 1988. Linking intonation units in spoken English. In John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson, eds., Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, 1–27. (Typological Studies in Language, 18.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
99. Chafe, Wallace. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Chafe and Nichols, eds., 261–263.
100. Chafe, Wallace and Johanna Nichols, eds. 1986. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Encoding of Epistemology. (Advances in Discourse Processes, 20). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
101. Chen, Guohua. 1998. The degrammaticalization of addressee-satisfaction conditionals in Early Modern English. In Jacek Fisiak and Marcin Krygier, eds., Advances in English Historical Linguistics, 23–32. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 12.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
102. Coates, Jennifer. 1998. Gossip revisited: Language in all-female groups. In Jenny Cheshire and Peter Trudgill, eds., The Sociolinguistics Reader. Vol. 2: Gender and Discourse, 127–152. London: Arnold. [Reprinted from Jennifer Coates and Deborah Cameron, eds., Women in their Speech Communities: New Perspectives on Language and Sex. New York and London: Longman, 1988.]
103. Cohen, Gerald Leonard. 2005. “talking American” program; slang as a valuable part of language. Online posting 6 January 2005. ADS-L. 7 January 2007; www.americandialect.org/.
104. Collins, Peter and David Lee, eds. 1998. The Clause in English: In Honour of Rodney Huddleston. (Studies in Language Companion Series, 45.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
105. Corum, Claudia. 1975. A pragmatic analysis of parenthetic adjuncts. In Robin E. Grossman, L. James San, and Timothy J. Vance, eds., Papers from the Eleventh Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 133–141. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
106. Crystal, David.52003. A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics. 5th edn. London: Blackwell. 1988. Another look at well, you know… English Today 13:47–49.
107. Crystal, David and Derek Davy. 1975. Advanced Conversational English. London: Longman.
108. Culpeper, Jonathan and Merja Kytö. 1999. Modifying pragmatic force: Hedges in a corpus of Early Modern English dialogues. In Andreas H. Jucker, Gerd Fritz, and Franz Lebsanft, eds. Historical Dialogue Analysis, 293–312. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 66.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
109. Curme, George O. 1935. Parts of Speech. Vol. I of A Grammar of the English Language. Boston: D.C. Heath. [Reprint: Essex, CT: Verbatim, 1977.]
110. Curme, George O. 1931. Syntax. Vol. II of A Grammar of the English Language. Boston: D.C. Heath. [Reprint: Essex, CT: Verbatim, 1977.]
111. Dancygier, Barbara. Forthcoming. Review of Wierzbicka, English: Meaning and Culture. Journal of English Linguistics.
112. Dehé, Nicole and Yordanka Kavalova, eds. 2007. Parentheticals. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 106.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
113. Dehé, Nicole and Yordanka Kavalova. 2006. The syntax, pragmatics, and prosody of parenthetical what.English Language and Linguistics10:289–320.
114. Denison, David. 2005. The grammaticalisations of sort of, kind of, and type of in English. Paper presented at New Reflections on Grammaticalization 3, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. Handout available at www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/subjects/lel/staff/david-denison/papers/
115. De Smet, Hendrik and Hubert Cuyckens. 2007. Diachronic aspects of complementation: Constructions, entrenchment and the matching problem. In Christopher M. Cains and Geoffrey Russom, eds., Studies in the History of the English Language III: Managing Chaos, Strategies for Identifying Change in English, 187–213. (Topics in English Linguistics, 53.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
116. Diani, Giuliana. 2004. The discourse function of I don’t know in English conversation. In Karin Aijmer and Anna-Brita Stenstrom, eds., Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora, 151–171. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 120.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
117. Diessel, Holger and Michael Tomasello. 2001. The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics12:97–141.
118. Diewald, Gabriele. 2006. Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Fischer, ed., 403–425.
119. Edmondson, Willis. 1981. Spoken Discourse: A Model for Analysis. (Longman Linguistic Library, 27.) London and New York: Longman.
120. Enkvist, Nils Erik and Brita Warvik. 1987. Old English pa, temporal chains, and narrative structure. In Anna Giacalone Ramat, Onofrio Carruba, and Giuliano Bernini, eds., Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 221–237. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 48.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
121. Erman, Britt. 2001. Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics33:1337–1359.
122. Erman, Britt. 1987. Pragmatic Expressions in English: A Study of you know, you see, and I mean in Face-to-Face Conversation. (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Stockholm Studies in English, 69.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
123. Erman, Britt. 1986. Some pragmatic expressions in English conversation. In Gunnel Tottie and Ingegerd Bäcklund, eds., English in Speech and Writing: A Symposium, 131–147. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
124. Erman, Britt and Ulla-Britt Kotsinas. 1993. Pragmaticalization: the case of ba’ and you know. Studies i modern sprakvetenskap, 76–93. (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Stockholm Studies in Modern Philology, New Series 10.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
125. Espinal, M. Teresa. 1991. The representation of disjunct constituents. Language67:726–762.
126. Faerch, Claus and Gabriele Kasper. 1982. Phatic, metalingual and metacommunicative functions in discourse: Gambits and repairs. In Nils Enkvist, ed., Impromptu Speech: A Symposium, 71–103. Abo: Abo Akademi.
127. Ferrara, Kathleen and Barbara Bell. 1995. Sociolinguistic variation and the case of be + like.American Speech70: 265–290.
128. Finegan, Edward and Douglas Biber. 1995. That and zero complementisers in Late Modern English: Exploring ARCHER from 1650–1990. In Aarts and Meyer, eds., 241–257.
129. Finell, Anne. 1989. Well now and then. Journal of Pragmatics13:653–656.
130. Fischer, Andreas. 1998. Marry: From religious invocation to discourse marker. In Borgmeier, Grabes, and Jucker, eds., 35–46.
131. Fischer, Kerstin, ed. 2006. Approaches to Discourse Particles. (Studies in Pragmatics, 1.) Amsterdam: Elsevier.
132. Fischer, Olga. 2007a. The development of English parentheticals: A case of grammaticalization? In Ute Smit et al., eds., Tracing English through Time: Explorations in Language Variation. A Festschrift for Herbert Schendl on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, 103–118. (Austrian Studies in English, 95.) Vienna: Braumüller.
133. Fischer, Olga. 2007b. Subjectification, scope and word order. Ch. 6 of Morphosyntactic Change: Formal and Functional Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
134. Fischer, Olga, Anette Rosenbach, and Dieter Stein, eds. 2000. Pathways of Change: Gram-maticalization in English. (Studies in Language Companion Series, 53.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
135. Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2004. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the historical construction of interlocutor stance: From stance markers to discourse markers. Discourse Studies6/4:427–448.
136. Fludernik, Monika. 2000. Narrative discourse markers in Malory’s Morte D’Arthur. Journal of Historical Pragmatics1:231–262.
137. Fludernik, Monika. 1995. Middle English Þ0 and other narrative discourse markers. In Jucker, ed., 359–392.
138. Fox Tree, Jean E. and Josef C. Schrock. 2002. Basic meaning of you know and Imean.Journal of Pragmatics34:727–747.
139. Frank-Job, Barbara. 2006. A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In Fischer, ed., 359–374.
140. Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are discourse markers.? Journal of Pragmatics31:931–952.
141. Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics6.2:167–190.
142. Fraser, Bruce. 1988. Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica38:19–33.
143. Frey, Patrick. 2006. If you will …Online posting. 24 January 2006. Patterico’s Pontifications. 8 January 2007; http://patterico.com/
144. Fried, Mirjam and Jan-Ola Östman. 2004. Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Mirjam Fried and Jan-Ola Östman, eds., Construction Grammar in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 11–86. (Constructional Approaches to Language, 2.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
145. Gerhardt, Julie and Charles Stinson. 1994. The nature of therapeutic discourse: Accounts of self. Journal of Narrative and Life History4:151–191.
146. Giacolone Ramat, Anna and Paul J. Hopper, eds. 1998. The Limits of Grammaticalization. (Typological Studies in Language, 37.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
147. Goldberg, Julia Anna. 1980. Discourse particles: An analysis of the role of y’know, I mean, well, and actually in conversation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Cambridge.
148. Gonzalez-Alvarez, María Dolores. 1996. Epistemic disjuncts in Early Modern English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics1:219–256.
149. Goossens, Louis. 1985. Framing the linguistic action scene in Old and Present-day English: OE cweðan, secgan, sprecan and Present-day English speak, talk, say and tell compared. In Jacek Fisiak, ed., Papers from the 6th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 149–170. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 34.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
150. Goossens, Louis. 1982. Say: Focus on message. In René Dirven, Louis Goossens, Yvans Putseys, and Emma Vorlat, eds., The Scene of Linguistic Action and its Perspectivization by speak, talk, say and tell, 85–131. (Pragmatics & Beyond, 3:6.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
151. Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Implicature. In Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, eds., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3: Speech Acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
152. Halliday, M. A. K. 1979. Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structures and their determination by different semantic functions. In D. J. Allerton, Edward Carney, and David Holdcroft, eds. Function and Context in Linguistic Analysis: A Festschrift for William Haas, 57–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
153. Halliday, M. A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English.(EnglishLanguage Series, 9.) London: Longman.
154. Hand, Michael. 1993. Parataxis and parentheticals. Linguistics and Philosophy16:495–507.
155. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2006. A dynamic polysemy approach to the lexical semantics of discourse markers (with an exemplary analysis of French toujours). In Fischer, ed., 21–41.
156. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2005. From prepositional phrase to hesitation marker: The semantic and pragmatic evolution of French enfin. Journal of Historical Pragmatics6:37–68.
157. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 1998. The Function of Discourse Particles: A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 53.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
158. Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37:1043–1068.
159. Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalization. In Joseph and Janda, eds., 575–601.
160. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hunnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
161. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, and Björn Wiemer, eds., What makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components, 21–42. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 158.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
162. Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2005. Grammaticalization and English Complex Prepositions. (Routledge Advances in Corpus Linguistics, 7.) London and New York: Routledge.
163. Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2004. Using the OED quotations database as a corpus — a linguistic appraisal. ICAME Journal 28:17–30.
164. Hoffmann, Sebastian and Miriam Locher. 2004. Discourse markers and grammaticalization theory: The case of in terms of. Paper presented at the 25th International Conference of the International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English (ICAME), Verona, Italy, May 2004.
165. Hooper, Joan B. 1975. On assertive predicates. In John B. Kimball, ed., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 4, 91–124. New York: Academic Press.
166. Hopper, Paul J. 1994. Phonogenesis. In William Pagliuca, ed., Perspectives on Grammaticalization, 29–45. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 109.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
167. Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott and Heine, eds., Vol. 1, 17–35.
168. Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 11993. 22003. Grammaticalization. 1st edn. 2nd edn. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
169. House, Juliane and Gabriele Kasper. 1981. Politeness markers in English and German. In Florian Coulmas, ed., Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, 157-185. The Hague, Paris, and New York: Mouton.
170. Hübler, Axel. 1983. Understatements and Hedges in English. (Pragmatics & Beyond, IV:6.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
171. Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
172. Ifantidou, Elly. 2001. Evidentials and Relevance. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 86.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
173. Iyeiri, Yoko. 2002. God forbid! revisited: A historical analysis of the English verb forbid. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Glasgow, UK, August 2002.
174. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. (Studies in Linguistics, 2.) Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.
175. Jacobsson Mattias. 2002. Thank you and thanks in Early Modern English. ICAME Journal26:63–80.
176. James, Allan R. 1983. Compromisers in English: A cross-disciplinary approach to their interpersonal significance. Journal of Pragmatics7:191–206.
177. James, Deborah. 1978. The use of oh, ah, say and well in relation to a number of grammatical phenomena. Papers in Linguistics11:517–535.
178. James, Deborah. 1973. Another look at, say, some grammatical constraints, on, oh, interjections and hesitations. In Claudia Corum et al., eds., Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 242–251. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
179. Jespersen, Otto. 1961 [1927]. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part III. Syntax. Second Volume. London: George Allen & Unwin/Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.
180. Jespersen, Otto. 1946. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part V. Syntax. Fourth Volume. London: George Allen and Unwin.
181. Joseph, Brian D. and Richard D.Janda, eds. 2003. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics.) Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell.
182. Joseph, Brian D. and Richard D. Janda. 1988. The how and why ofdiachronic morphol-ogization and demorphologization. In Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan, eds., Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, 193–210. San Diego: Academic Press.
183. Jucker, Andreas H. 2002. Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In Richard Watts and Peter Trudgill, eds., Alternative Histories of English, 210–230. London and New York: Routledge.
184. Jucker, Andreas H. 1997. The discourse marker well in the history of English. English Language and Linguistics1:91–110.
185. Jucker, Andreas H., ed. 1995. Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 35.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
186. Jucker, Andreas H. and Sara W. Smith. 1998. And people just you know like ‘wow’: Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In Jucker and Ziv, eds., 171–201.
187. Jucker, Andreas H., Sara W. Smith, and Tanja Lüdge. 2003. Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics35:1739–1769.
188. Jucker, Andreas H. and Yael Ziv, eds. 1998. Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 57.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
189. Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2005. Charting the boundaries of syntax: A taxonomy of spoken parenthetical clauses. View[z]: Vienna Working Papers14.1:21–53; www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/ang_new/online_papers/views.html
190. Karkkainen, Elise. 2007. The role of Iguess in conversational stancetaking. In Robert Englebretson, ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, 183–219. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 164.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
191. Karkkainen, Elise 2003. Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on I think. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 115.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
192. Kastovsky, Dieter. 1982. Wortbildung und Semantik. (Studienreihe Englisch, 14.) Düsseldorf: Padagogischer Verlag Schwann-Bagel.
193. Kay, Paul. 1997. Construction Grammar. Words and the Grammar of Context, 123–131. (CSLI Lecture Notes, 40.) Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publication. Originally printed in Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola (Östman, and Jan Blommaert, eds., Handbook of Pragmatics, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1995.)
194. Kay, Paul 1983. Linguistic competence and folk theories of language: Two English hedges. In Amy Dahlstrom, Claudia Brugman, and Monica Macaulay, eds., Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 128–137. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. (Reprinted in Kay 1997, 133–143.)
195. Keller, Eric. 1979. Gambits: Conversational strategy signals. Journal of Pragmatics3:219–238.
196. Keller, Eric and Sylvia Taba Warner. 1979, 1976. Gambits: Conversational Tools. 1. Openers. 2. Links. Hull, P.Q.: Public Service Commission of Canada, Language Training Branch, English Program Development Unit.
197. Kim, Taejin. 1992. The Particle pa in the West-Saxon Gospels: A Discourse-Level Analysis. Bern: Peter Lang.
198. Koivisto-Alanko, Päivi and Matti Rissanen. 2002. We give you to wit: Semantics and grammaticalisation of the verb wit in the history of English. In Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi, and Matti Rissanen, eds., Variation Past and Present: VARIENG Studies on English for Terttu Nevalainen, 13–32. (Memoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, 61.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
199. Kroesch, Samuel. 1911. The semasiological development of words for ‘perceive’, etc. in the older Germanic dialects. Modern Philology8:461–510.
200. Krug, Manfred. 1998. British English is developing a new discourse marker, innit? A study in lexicalisation based on social, regional and stylistic variation. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik23:145–197.
201. Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 1998. Pragmatic particles in Early Modern English court trials. In Borgmeier, Grabes, and Jucker, eds., 47–56.
202. Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara 1997. From temporal adverbs to discourse particles: An instance of cross-linguistic grammaticalization? In Terttu Nevalainen and Leena Kahlas Tarkka, eds., To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, 319–328. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, 52.) Helsinki: Socieété Néophilologique.
203. Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1965. The evolution of grammatical categories. Diogenes51:55–71.
204. Lalljee, Mansur and Mark Cook. 1975. Anxiety and ritualized speech. British Journal of Psychology66:299–306.
205. Lehmann, Christian. 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Wischer and Diewald, eds., 1–18.
206. Lehmann, Christian 1995 [1982]. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. (LINCOM Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, 01.) Revised and expanded version. München and Newcastle: Lincom Europa.
207. Lenk, Uta. 1998. Marking Discourse Coherence: Functions of Discourse Markers in Spoken English. (Language in Performance, 15.) Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
208. Lenker, Ursula. 2000. Soplice and witodlice: Discourse markers in Old English. In Fischer, Rosenbach, and Stein, eds., 229–249.
209. Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meaning: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. (Language, Speech, and Communication.) Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.
210. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
211. Lewis, Diana M. 2006. Discourse markers in English: A discourse-pragmatic view. In Fischer, ed., 43–59.
212. Lewis, Diana M. 2002. Rhetorical factors in lexical-semantic change: The case of at least. In Javier E. Dlaz Vera, ed., A Changing World of Words, 525–538. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.
213. Lieberman, Mark. 2003. Like is, like not really like if you will. Online posting. 22 November 2003. Language Log. 5 January 2007; http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/
214. Lindström, Jan and Camilla Wide. 2005. Tracing the origins of a set of discourse particles: Swedish particles of the type you know. Journal of Historical Pragmatics6:211–236.
215. Lindstom, Therese Å. M. 2004. The history of the concept of grammaticalisation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Sheffield.
216. Lipka, Leonhard. 32002. English Lexicology: Lexical Structure, Word Semantics & Word-Formation. 3rd revised edn. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
217. López-Couso, María Jose. 1996. On the history of methinks: From impersonal construction to fossilized expression. Folia Linguistica Historica 17:153–169.
218. Markkanen, Raija. 1985. English parenthetical clauses of the type ‘I believe/you know’ and their Finnish equivalents. Cross-Linguistics Studies in Pragmatics, 45–63. (Jyväskylä Cross-Language Studies, 11.) Jyväskylä: Dept. of English, University of Jyväskylä.
219. Mathews, M. M. 1946. Notes on “American Speech,” April 1945. American Speech21: 19–22.
220. McCawley, James D. 1982. Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry13:91–106.
221. Meehan, Teresa. 1991. It’s like, “what’s happening in the evolution of like.?”: A theory of grammaticalization. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics16:37–51.
222. Meillet, Antoine. 1958 [1912]. L’évolution des formes grammaticales. In Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. (Collection linguistique publiée par la Socieété de Linguistique de Paris, 8.) Paris: Campion.
223. Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2007. Adjunct, modifier, discourse marker: On the various functions of right in the history of English. Folia Linguistica Historica27:141–195.
224. Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English Syntax. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
225. Molina, Clara. 2002. On the role of meaning in the historical development of discourse markers. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Glasgow, UK, August 2002.
226. Moore, Colette. 2006. The use of videlicet in Early Modern slander depositions: A case of genre-specific grammaticalization. Journal of Historical Pragmatics7:245–263.
227. Moreno Cabrera, Juan C. 1998. On the relationship between grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Giacolone Ramat and Hopper, eds., 211–227.
228. Neufeldt, Victoria. 1999. Re: lookit? Online posting. 16 April 1999. ADS-L; www.americandialect.org/
229. Nevalainen, Terttu. 1991. BUT, ONLY, JUST: Focusing Adverbial Change in Modern English 1500–1900. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, 51.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
230. Nevanlinna, Saara. 1974. Background and history of as who say/saith in Old and Middle English literature. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen75:568–601.
231. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. (Language, Speech, and Communication.) Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
232. Nuccorini, Stafania. 1990. From transparency to opaqueness: The case of fixed expressions. In Clotilde de Stasio, Maurizio Gotti, and Rosanna Bonadei, eds., La rappresentazione verbale e iconica: valori estetici e funzionali, 417–428. Milan: Angelo Guerini.
233. Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag, and Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language70:491–538.
234. Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics33:383–400.
235. Östman, Jan-Ola. 1981. You know: A Discourse Functional View. (Pragmatics & Beyond, 2:7.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
236. Palacas, Arthur L. 1989. Parentheticals and personal voice. Written Communication6:506–527.
237. Palander-Collin, Minna. 1999. Grammaticalization and Social Embedding: I THINK and METHINKS in Middle and Early Modern English. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, 55.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
238. Pawley, Andrew. 1986. Lexicalization. In Deborah Tannen and James E. Alatis, eds., Languages and Linguistics: The Interdependence of Theory, Data, and Application, 98–120. (GURT 1985.) Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
239. Peltola, Niilo. 1982/1983. Comment clauses in Present-Day English. In Inna Kosken-niemi, Esko Pennanen, and Hilkka Aaltonen, eds., Studies in Classical and Modern Philology, 101–113. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
240. Persson, Gunnar. 1993. Think in a panchronic perspective. Studia Neophilologica 65:3–18.
241. Peterson, Peter. 1998. On the boundaries ofsyntax: Non-syntagmatic relations. In Collins and Lee, eds., 229–250.
242. Potts, Christopher. 2002. The syntax and semantics of as-parentheticals. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory20:623–689.
243. Poutsma, H. 1926. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Part II: The Parts of Speech. Section II: The Verb and the Particles. Groningen: P. Noordhof.
244. Poutsma, H. 1917. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Part II: The Parts of Speech. Section I, B. Pronouns and Numerals. Groningen: P. Noordhof.
245. Prins, A. A. 1952. French Influence in English Phrasing. Leiden: Universitaire pers Leiden.
246. Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2003. It’s like, so unfair. Online posting. 22 November 2003. Language Log. 5 January 2007; http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/.
247. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
248. Ramat, Paolo. 2001. Degrammaticalization or transcategorization? In Chris Schaner-Wolles, John Rennison, and Friedrich Newubarth, eds., Naturally! Linguistic Studies in Honour of Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler Presented on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, 393–401. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.
249. Ramat, Paolo. 1992. Thoughts on degrammaticalization. Linguistics30:549–560.
250. Redeker, Gisela. 1990. Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 14:367–381.
251. Rickford, John R., Thomas A. Wasow, Norma Mendoza-Denton, and Juli Espinoza. 1995. Syntactic variation and change in progress: Loss of the verbal coda in topic-restricting as far as constructions. Language71:102–131.
252. Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Syntax. In Roger Lass, ed., The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. III: 1476–1776, 187–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
253. Rissanen, Matti 1993. The loss of WIT ‘know’: Evidence from the Helsinki Corpus. In Risto Hiltunen et al., eds., English Far and Wide: A Festschrift for Inna Koskenneimi. (Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, B:197.) Turku: Turun Yliopisto.
254. Rissanen, Matti 1991. On the history of that/zero as object clause links in English. In Karin Aijmer and Bengt Altenberg, eds., English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, 272–289. London and New York: Longman.
255. Roberts, Ian G. and Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 100.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
256. Romaine, Suzanne and Deborah Lange. 1991. The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech66:227–279.
257. Romero Trillo, Jesús. 1997. Your attention, please: Pragmatic mechanisms to obtain the addressee’s attention in English and Spanish conversations. Journal of Pragmatics28:205–221.
258. Ross, John Robert. 1973. Slifting. In Maurice Gross, Morris Halle, Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger, eds., The Formal Analysis of Natural Languages: Proceedings of the First International Conference, 133–169. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.
259. Rouchota, Villy. 1998. Procedural meaning and parenthetical discourse markers. In Jucker and Ziv, eds., 97–126.
260. Rudanko, Juhani. 1989. Complementation and Case Grammar: A Syntactic and Semantic Study of Selected Patterns of Complementation in Present-Day English. Albany: State University of New York Press.
261. Safire, William. 1999. On language. New York Times Sunday Magazine. June 13. Pg. 18.
262. Scheibman, Joanne. 2002. Points of View and Grammar: Structural Patterns of Subjectivity in American Conversation. (Studies in Discourse and Grammar, 11.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
263. Scheibman, Joanne. 2001. Local patterns of subjectivity in person and verb type in American English conversation. In Joan Bybee and Paul Hopper, eds., Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, 61–89. (Typological Studies in Language, 45.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
264. Scheibman, Joanne. 2000. Idunno: A usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don’t in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics32:105–124.
265. Schelfhout, Carla. 2000. Corpus-based analysis of parenthetical reporting clauses. In Frank Van Eynde, Inede Schuurman, and Ness Schelkens, eds., Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands 1998: Selected papers from the Ninth CLIN Meeting, 147–159. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics, 29.) Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
266. Schelfhout, Carla, Peter-Arno Coppen, and Nelleke Oostdijk. 2004. Finite comment clauses in Dutch: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Linguistics16:331–349.
267. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1988. Semantic and pragmatic sources of the discourse marker then. Paper presented at the Georgetown University Roundtable in Linguistics (GURT). 1987. Discourse Markers. (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics, 5.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
268. Schourup, Lawrence. 2004. Lookit and the history of look-forms. In Taro Kagyama and Hideki Kishimoto, eds., Nihongo no Bunsiki to Gengo Ruikei: Shibatani Masayoshi Kyoju Kanredki-nen Robunshu (The Analysis of Japanese and Linguistic Typology: Festschrift for Professor Masayoshi Shibatani on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday), 543–558. Tokyo: Kuroshio Press.
269. Schourup, Lawrence 1999. Discourse markers. Lingua107:227–265.
270. Schourup, Lawrence 1985. Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation. New York and London: Garland Press.
271. Schwenter, Scott A. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2000. Invoking scalarity: The development of in fact. Journal of Historical Pragmatics1:7–25.
272. Searle, John R. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3 Speech Acts, 59–82. New York: Academic Press.
273. Shapiro, Marianne and Michael Shapiro. 1993. Wimp English. American Speech68:327–330.
274. Shinzato, Rumiko. 2004. Some observations concerning mental verbs and speech act verbs. Journal of Pragmatics36:861–882.
275. Siegel, Muffy E. A. 2002. Like: The discourse particle and semantics. Journal of Semantics19:35–71.
276. Simon, Beth. 2002. If you would for if you will. Online posting 17 February 2002. ADS-L. 7 January 2007; www.americandialect.org/.
277. Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2000. The functions of I think in political discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics10:41–63.
278. Stenstrom, Anna-Brita. 1998. From sentence to discourse: Cos because in teenage talk. In Jucker and Ziv, eds., 127–146.
279. Stenstrom, Anna-Brita 1995. Some remarks on comment clauses. In Aarts and Meyer, eds., 290–302.
280. Stenstrom, Anna-Brita 1994. An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. (Learning About Language.) London and New York: Longman.
281. Swan, Michael. 1994. Language conundrums. ELT Journal: An International Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of other Languages 48:356–360.
282. Swan, Toril. 1988. Sentence Adverbials in English: A Synchronic and Diachronic Investigation. (Tromso-Studier i Sprakvitenskap, 10.) Oslo: Novus.
283. Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 54.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
284. Tabor, Whitney and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In Giacalone Ramat and Hopper, eds., 229–272.
285. Tagliamonte, Sali and Alexandra D’Arcy. 2007. The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective. English World-Wide28:47–87.
286. Tagliamonte, Sali and Rachel Hudson. 1999. Be like et al. beyond America: The quotative system in British and Canadian youth. Journal of Sociolinguistics3:147–172.
287. Tagliamonte, Sali and Jennifer Smith. 2006. Layering, competition and a twist of fate: Deontic modality in dialects of English. Diachronica23:341–380.
288. Tagliamonte, Sali and Jennifer Smith 2005. No momentary fancy! The zero ‘complementizer’ in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics9:289–309.
289. Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. “Object complements” and conversation. Studies in Language26:125–164.
290. Thompson, Sandra A. and Anthony Mulac. 1991a. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics15:237–251.
291. Thompson, Sandra A. and Anthony Mulac. 1991b. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization ofepistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott and Heine, eds., Vol. 2, 313–329.
292. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. Forthcoming. “All that he endeavoured to prove was …” On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogual contexts. In Ruth Kempson and Robin Cooper, eds., Language Change and Evolution.
293. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2007a. Do constructions grammaticalize? Emergent constructions, grammaticalization, and motivation. Paper presented at a Workshop of Grammaticalization, Universidade Federal Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Brazil, June 2007.
294. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2007b. Grammaticalization and Construction Grammar. Paper presented at a Workshop of Grammaticalization, Universidade Federal Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Brazil, June 2007.
295. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2005. Lexicalization and grammaticalization. In D. Alan Cruse, Franz Hundsnurscher, Michael Job, and Peter Rolf Lutzeier, eds., Lexikologie — Lexicology, 1702–1712. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
296. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2003a. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Joseph and Janda, eds., 624–647.
297. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2003b. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Raymond Hickey, ed., Motives for Language Change, 124–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
298. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2001. Legitimate counterexamples to unidirectionality in grammaticalization. Paper presented at Freiburg University. Available at www.stanford.edu/~traugott/ect-papersonline.html
299. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2000. Promise and pray-parentheticals. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, September 2000.
300. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1997. The discourse connective after all: A historical pragmatic account. Paper presented at ICL, Paris, July.
301. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1995a (version of 11/97). The role of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester, UK, August 1995. Available at www.stanford.edu/~traugott/ect-papersonline.html
302. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1995b. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Dieter Stein and Susan Wright, eds. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
303. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1994. Grammaticalization and lexicalization. In R. E. Asher and J. M. Y. Simpson, eds., The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 1481–1486. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
304. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Winfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel, eds., Perspectives on Historical Linguistics, 245–271. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 24.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
305. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 96.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
306. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Bernd Heine, eds. 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization. (Typological Studies in Language, 19.) 2 vols. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
307. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Ekkehard König. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott and Heine, eds., Vol. 1, 189–218.
308. Trousdale, Graeme. Forthcoming. Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In Graeme Trousdale and Nikolas Gisborne, eds., Constructional Explanations in Modern English Grammar(Topics in English Linguistics.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
309. Tsui, Amy B. M. 1991. The pragmatic functions of I don’t know. Text 11:607–622.
310. Underhill, Robert. 1988. Like is, like, focus. American Speech63:234–246.
311. Urmson, J. O. 1952. Parenthetical verbs. Mind 61:480–496.
312. Van Bogaert, Julie. 2006. I guess, I suppose and I believe as pragmatic markers: Grammaticalization and functions. BELL (Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures)4(NewSeries):129–149.
313. Van Der Auwera, Johan. 2002. More thoughts on degrammaticalization. In Wischer and Diewald, eds., 19–29.
314. Verhagen, Arie. 2001. Subordination and discourse segmentation revisited, or: Why matrix clauses may be more dependent than complements. In Ted Sanders, Joost Schilperood, and Wilbert Spooren, eds., Text Representation: Linguistic and Psy-cholinguistic Aspects, 337–357. (Human Cognitive Processing, 8.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
315. Visser, F. Th. 1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Part Three: Second Half: Syntactical Units with Two and with More Verbs. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
316. Visser, F. Th. 1972. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Part Two: Syntactical Units with One Verb (continued). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
317. Visser, F. Th. 1970. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Part One: Syntactical Units with One Verb. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
318. Visser, F. Th. 1969. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Part Three: First Half: Syntactical Units with Two Verbs. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
319. Waltereit, Richard. 2006. The rise of discourse markers in Italian: A specific type of language change. In Fischer, ed., 61–76.
320. Waltereit, Richard 2002. Imperatives, interruption in conversation and the rise of discourse markers: A study of Italian guarda.Linguistics40:987–1010.
321. Warvik, Brita. 1995. The ambiguous adverbial/conjunction pa and ponne in Middle English: A discourse-pragmatic study of then and when in early English Saints’ Lives. In Jucker, ed., 345–357.
322. Warvik, Brita 1990. On grounding in English narratives: A diachronic perspective. In Sylvia Adamson, Vivien Law, Nigel Vincent, and Susan Wright, eds., Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 559–575. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 65.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
323. Watts, Richard J. 1989. Taking the pitcher to the ‘well’: Native speakers’ perception of their use of discourse markers in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics13:203–237.
324. Wee, Lionel. 2003. The birth of a particle: Know in Colloquial Singapore English. World Englishes22:5–13.
325. Wichmann, Anne. 2001. Spoken parentheticals. In Karin Aijmer, ed., A Wealth of English: Studies in Honor of Göran Kjellmer, 177–193. (Gothenburg Studies in English, 81.) Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
326. Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and Culture. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
327. Willinsky, John. 1994. Empire of Words: The Reign of the OED. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
328. Wischer, Ilse. 2000. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization: ‘methinks’ there is some confusion. In Fischer, Rosenbach, and Stein, eds., 355–370.
329. Wischer, Ilse and Gabriele Diewald, eds., 2002. New Reflections on Grammaticalization. (Typological Studies in Language, 49.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
330. Wood, Francis A. 1899. Understand, guess, think, mean, semasiologically explained. Modern Language Notes14:129–131.
331. Zhang, Xiaohong. 2006. Grammaticalization of pragmatic markers in Friends. US-China Foreign Language 4.7:67–71.