Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T23:20:22.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2021

Bernd Heine ,
Gunther Kaltenböck ,
Tania Kuteva  and
Haiping Long
Bernd Heine
Affiliation:
University of Cologne
Gunther Kaltenböck
Affiliation:
University of Graz
Tania Kuteva
Affiliation:
Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf
Haiping Long
Affiliation:
Sun Yat-Sen University, China
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Rise of Discourse Markers , pp. 273 - 298
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abraham, Werner 1991. The grammaticization of the German modal particles. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, volume 2 (Typological Studies in Language, 19). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 331–80.Google Scholar
Ädel, Annelie 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ädel, Annelie 2012. “What I want you to remember is…”: Audience orientation in monologic academic discourse. English Text Construction 5, 1: 101–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahn, Mikyung 2012. A pragmatic role of Korean maliya in discourse. Discourse and Cognition 19, 1: 103–18.Google Scholar
Ahn, Mikyung and Yap, Foong Ha 2013. Negotiating common ground in discourse: A diachronic and discourse analysis of maliya in Korean. Language Sciences 37, 1: 36–51.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin 1997. “I think” – An English modal particle. In Swan, Toril and Westvik, Olaf J. (eds.), Modality in Germanic Languages. Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 1–47.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin 2002. English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin 2013. Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin 2016. Pragmatic markers as constructions: The case of anyway. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien, and Lohmann, Arne (eds.), Outside the Clause (Studies in Language Companion Series, 178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 29–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin, Foolen, Ad, and Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie 2006. Pragmatic markers in translation: A methodological proposal. In Fischer, Kerstin (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pp. 101–14.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin and Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie 2003. The discourse particle “well” and its equivalents in Swedish and Dutch. Linguistics 41, 1: 1123–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin and Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie 2009. Pragmatic markers. In Östman, Jan-Ola and Verschueren, Jef (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2002. Language Contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Imperatives and Commands (Oxford Studies in Linguistic Theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ameka, Felix 1992. Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 18, 2–3: 101–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amiridze, Nino, Davis, Boyd H., and Maclagan, Margaret (eds.) 2010. Fillers, Pauses and Placeholders (Typological Studies in Language, 93). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Gisle 2001. Pragmatics Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. A Relevance-Theoretic Approach to the Language of Adolescents (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Andersen, Gisle 2014. Pragmatic borrowing. Journal of Pragmatics 67, 1: 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning 2006. Grammation, regrammation, and degrammation. Diachronica 23, 2: 231–58.Google Scholar
Aoki, Hirofumi 2019. Setsuzokushi to bunpooka – Chusei kooki ‘shoomono shiryou’ o chuushin ni [Conjunctions and grammaticalization – With special focus on the Late Medieval “Shoomono data”]. Paper presented at the Workshop on Grammaticalization (GJNL-4), Tohoku University, 2019.Google Scholar
Arroyo, José Luis Blas 2011. From politeness to discourse marking: The process of pragmaticalization of muy bien in vernacular Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 855–74.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas 2000. Truth conditional discourse semantics for parentheticals. Journal of Semantics 17: 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter 1996. The pre-front field position in spoken German and its relevance as a grammaticalization position. Pragmatics 6: 295–322.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter and Günthner, Susanne 2003. Die Entstehung von Diskursmarkern im Deutschen – ein Fall von Grammatikalisierung? Interaction and Linguistic Structures 38: 1–30.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter and Günthner, Susanne 2005. Die Entstehung von Diskursmarkern im Deutschen – ein Fall von Grammatikalisierung? In Leuschner, Torsten, Mortelmans, Tanja, and De Groodt, Sarah (eds.), Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen (Linguistik – Impulse & Tendenzen 9). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Pp. 335–62.Google Scholar
Backus, Angus 1996. Two in One: Bilingual Speech of Turkish Immigrants in the Netherlands. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Opal Ruth 1980. Categories of Code Switching in Hispanic Communities: Untangling the Terminology (Sociolinguistic Working Papers 76). Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth 2002. On the development of final though: A case of grammaticalization? In Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 345–61.Google Scholar
Bax, Stephen 2011. Discourse and Genre: Analysing Language in Context. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate 2016. Pragmatic Markers in British English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate and Detges, Ulrich (eds.) 2014. Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beijering, Karin 2012. Expressions of Epistemic Modality in Mainland Scandinavian: A Study into the Lexicalization–Grammaticalization–Pragmaticalization Interface. Dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen.Google Scholar
Bell, David M. 2009. Mind you. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 915–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berk-Seligson, Susan 1986. Linguistic constraints on intrasentential code-switching: A study of Spanish/Hebrew bilingualism. Language in Society 15: 313–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, and Finegan, Edward 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane 1988. So as a constraint on relevance. In Kempson, R. (ed.), Mental Representation: The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 183–95.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane 1996. Are apposition markers discourse markers? Journal of Linguistics 32, 2: 325–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane 2007. “Or”-parentheticals, “that is”-parentheticals and the pragmatics of reformulation. Journal of Linguistics 43: 311–39.Google Scholar
Blass, Regina 1990. Relevance Relations in Discourse: A Study with Special Reference to Sissala. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bolly, Catherine 2014. Gradience and gradualness of parentheticals: Drawing a line in the sand between phraseology and grammaticalization. Yearbook of Phraseology 5: 25–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolly, Catherine and Degand, Liesbeth 2013. Have you seen what I mean? From verbal constructions to discourse markers. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 14, 2: 210–35.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Vincent, Nigel, and Walkden, George 2015. On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society 113, 3: 363–82.Google Scholar
Borreguero Zuloaga, Margarita 2018. The evolution of temporal adverbs into consecutive connectives and the role of discourse traditions: The case of Italian allora and Spanish entonces. In Bordería, Salvador Pons and Lamas, Óscar Loureda (eds.), Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change (Studies in Pragmatics, 18). Leiden: Brill. Pp. 231–70.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper and Harder, Peter 2007. Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language 31, 3: 569–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper and Harder, Peter 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88: 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breban, Tine 2015. Refining secondary grammaticalization by looking at subprocesses of change. Language Sciences 47: 161–71.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine & Kranich, Svenja 2015. Introduction to what happens after grammaticalization? Secondary grammaticalization and other late stage processes. Language Sciences 47: 129–31.Google Scholar
Breu, Walter and Piccoli, G. 2000. Dizionario croato molisano di Acquaviva Colleroce. Campobasso, typescript.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1995. Pragmatic markers in a diachronic perspective. In Ahlers, J., Bilmes, L., Guenter, J. S., Kaiser, B. A., and Namkung, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 17–20, 1995. General Session and Parasession on Historical Issues in Sociolinguistics/Social Issues in Historical Linguistics. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Pp. 377–88.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions (Topics in English Linguistics, 19). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2001. From matrix clause to pragmatic marker: The history of look-forms. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2: 177–99.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2006. Pathways in the development of pragmatic markers in English. In Van Kemenade, Ans and Los, Bettelou (eds.), The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell. Pp. 307–34.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2010a. The development of I mean: Implications for the study of historical pragmatics. In Fitzmaurice, Susan M. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Methods in Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 37–80.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2010b. From performative to concessive disjunct: I/you admit and admittedly. In Kytö, Merja, Scahill, John, and Tanabe, Harumi (eds.), Language Change and Variation from Old English to Late Modern English: A Festschrift for Minoji Akimoto (Studies in Language and Communication 14). Bern: Lang. Pp. 279–302.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2014. If you choose/like/prefer/want/wish: The origin of metalinguistic and politeness functions. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.), Late Modern English Syntax in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 271–90.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2017. The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English: Pathways of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. and Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brody, J. 1987. Particles borrowed from Spanish as discourse markers into Mayan languages. Anthropological Linguistics 29: 507–21.Google Scholar
Brody, J. 1993. Borrowing the “unborrowable”: Spanish discourse markers in indigenous American languages. In Silva-Corvalán, Carmen (ed.), Spanish in Four Continents. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Pp. 132–47.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D., and Pagliuca, William 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle 1991. Some grammaticalization changes in Estonian and their implications. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, volume 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 285–99.Google Scholar
Cap, Piotr 2011. Micropragmatics and macropragmatics. In Bublitz, Wolfram and Norrick, Neal R. (eds.), Foundations of Pragmatics (Handbook of Pragmatics 1). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Pp. 51–75.Google Scholar
Carter, Ron and McCarthy, Michael 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Choi, Jane Boyun 2007. A corpus-based discourse analysis of Korean discourse markers: An analysis of spoken and written use. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia 2013. The evolution of three pragmatic markers: As it were, so to speak/say and if you like. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 14, 2: 161–84.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia and Arnovick, Leslie 2010. Pragmaticalisation and discursisation. In Jucker, H. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Historical Pragmatics (Handbook of Pragmatics, 8). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Pp. 165–92.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and Fox Tree, Jean E. 2002. Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition 84: 73–111.Google Scholar
Claudi, Ulrike and Heine, Bernd 1986. On the metaphorical base of grammar. Studies in Language 10, 2: 297–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, Florian 1979. On the sociolinguistic relevance of routine formulae. Journal of Pragmatics 3: 239–66.Google Scholar
Craig, Colette G. 1991. Ways to go in Rama: A case study in polygrammaticalization. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Heine, Bernd (eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization, volume 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 455–92.Google Scholar
Crible, Ludivine 2017. Towards an operational category of discourse markers: A definition and its model. In Fedriani, Chiara and Sansò, Andrea (eds.), Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles (Studies in Language Companion Series, 186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 99–124.Google Scholar
Croft, William 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cuenca, Maria Josep 2008. Pragmatic markers in contrast: The case of well. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1373–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, Maria Josep 2013. The fuzzy boundaries between discourse marking and modal marking. In Degand, Liesbeth, Cornillie, Bert, and Pietrandrea, Paola (eds.), Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and Description (Pragmatics and Beyond, New Series, 234). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 191–216.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra 2017. Discourse-Pragmatic Variation in Context: Eight Hundred Years of LIKE. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin, De Wolf, Simon, and Van linden, An 2015. The development of the modal and discourse uses of there/it is/I have no doubt expressing modal and interactional meaning. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16, 1: 25–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): One Billion Words, 1990–2019. Available at www.english-corpora.org/coca/. Last accessed October 2020.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark 2010. The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400 Million Words, 1810–2009. Available at www.english-corpora.org/coha/. Last accessed October 2020.Google Scholar
de Rooij, Vincent A. 2000. French discourse markers in Shaba Swahili conversations. International Journal of Bilingualism 4, 4: 447–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debaisieux, Jeanne-Marie 2007. La distinction entre dépendance grammaticale et dépendance macrosyntaxique comme moyen de résoudre les paradoxes de la subordination. Faits de Langue 28: 119–32.Google Scholar
Debaisieux, Jeanne-Marie 2018. Utterances: One speaker but two resources, micro and macro syntax. Paper presented at the international workshop One Brain – Two Grammars? Examining dualistic approaches to grammar and cognition, Rostock, March 1–2, 2018.Google Scholar
Defour, Tine 2007. A Diachronic Study of the Pragmatic Markers well and now: Fundamental Research into Semantic Development and Grammaticalization by Means of a Corpus Study. PhD dissertation, University of Ghent.Google Scholar
Defour, Tine, D’Hondt, Ulrique, Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, and Willems, Dominique 2010. In fact, en fait, de fait, au fait: A contrastive study of the synchronic correspondences and diachronic development of English and French cognates. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 111, 4: 433–63.Google Scholar
Defour, Tine, D’Hondt, Ulrique, Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, and Willems, Dominique 2012. Degrees of pragmaticalization: The divergent histories of actually and actuellement. In Lauwers, Peter, Vanderbauwhede, Gudrun, and Verleyen, Stijn (eds.), Pragmatic Markers and Pragmaticalization: Lessons from False Friends. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 37–64.Google Scholar
Defour, Tine and Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie 2010. “Positive appraisal” as a core meaning of well: A corpus-based analysis in middle and early modern English data. English Studies 91, 6: 643–73.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, Cornillie, Bert, and Pietrandrea, Paola (eds.) 2013. Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and Description (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 234). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth and Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline 2015. Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers?: More than a terminological issue. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16, 1: 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth and Fagard, Benjamin 2011. Alors between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language 18, 1: 19–56.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth and Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie 2011. Introduction: Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of discourse markers. Linguistics 49, 2: 287–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole 2014. Parentheticals in Spoken English: The Syntax-Prosody Relation (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole and Kavalova, Yordanka 2006. The syntax, pragmatics, and prosody of parenthetical what. English Language and Linguistics 10: 289–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole and Kavalova, Yordanka (eds.) 2007. Parentheticals (Linguistics Today, 106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole and Wichmann, Anne 2010. Sentence-initial I think (that) and I believe (that): Prosodic evidence for use as main clause, comment clause and discourse marker. Studies in Language 34, 1: 36–74.Google Scholar
Dér, Csilla Ilona 2010. On the status of discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57, 1: 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dér, Csilla Ilona 2013. Grammaticalization: A specific type of semantic, categorical, and prosodic change. Berliner Beitrage zur Hungarologie 18: 160–79.Google Scholar
Dér, Csilla Ilona and Markó, Alexandra 2010. A pilot study of Hungarian discourse markers. Language and Speech 53, 2: 135–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Detges, Ulrich and Gévaudan, Paul 2018. Insubordination, Abtönung, and the next move in interaction: Main-clause-initial puisque in French. In Bordería, Salvador Pons and Lamas, Óscar Loureda (eds.), Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change (Studies in Pragmatics, 18). Leiden: Brill. Pp. 304–33.Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich and Waltereit, Richard 2007. Different functions, different histories: Modal particles and discourse markers from a diachronic point of view. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 61–81.Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich and Waltereit, Richard 2016. Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In Fischer, S. and Gabriel, C. (eds.), Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance (Manuals of Romance Linguistics). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Pp. 635–57.Google Scholar
Deulofeu, Josés 2017. La macrosyntaxe comme moyen de tracer la limite entre organisation grammaticale et organisation du discours. Modèles Linguistiques 2016: 135–66.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger 2019. The Grammar Network: How Language Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele 2006. Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Fischer, Kerstin (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (Studies in Pragmatics, 1). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pp. 403–25.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2011a. Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In Narrog, Heiko, and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 450–61.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2011b. Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49, 2: 365–90.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 2: Complex and Derived Constructions (Functional Grammar Series, 21). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 379–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dostie, Gaetane 2004. Pragmaticalisation et marqueurs discursifs: Analyse sémantique et traitement lexicographique. Brussels: De Boeck & Larcier.Google Scholar
Dostie, Gaetane 2009. Discourse markers and regional variation in French: A lexico-semantic approach. In Beeching, Kate, Armstrong, Nigel, and Gadet, Francoise (eds.), Sociolinguistic Variation in Contemporary French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 201–14.Google Scholar
Emanatian, Michele 1992. Chagga “come” and “go”: Metaphor and the development of tense-aspect. Studies in Language 16, 1: 1–33.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph 1973. Parenthetical clauses. In Corum, Claudia, Smith-Stark, T. C., and Weiser, A. (eds.), You Take the High Node and I’ll Take the Low Node. Chicago, IL: Linguistic Society. Pp. 333–47.Google Scholar
Erman, Britt and Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt 1993. Pragmaticalization: the case of ba and you know. Studier i modern sprakvetenskap 10: 76–92.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. Teresa 1991. The representation of disjunct constituents. Language 67: 726–62.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Nicolaeva, Irina (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 366–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagard, Benjamin 2010. É vida, olha …: Imperatives as discourse markers and grammaticalization paths in Romance: A diachronic corpus study. Languages in Contrast 10, 2: 245–67.Google Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara and Sansò, Andrea 2017. Pragmatic markers, discourse markers and modal particles: What do we know and where do we go from here? In Fedriani, Chiara and Sansò, Andrea (eds.), Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles (Studies in Language Companion Series, 186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Kathleen W. 1997. Form and function of the discourse marker anyway: Implications for discourse analysis. Linguistics 35: 343–78.Google Scholar
Fforde, Jasper 2003. The Well of Lost Plots. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
Fiorentini, Ilaria 2017. Italian discourse markers and modal particles in contact. In Fedriani, Chiara and Sansò, Andrea (eds.), Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles (Studies in Language Companion Series, 186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 417–37.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga 2007a. The development of English parentheticals: A case of grammaticalization? In Smit, Ute et al. (eds.), Tracing English through Time: Explorations in Language Variation: A Festschrift for Herbert Schendl on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Austrian Studies in English, 95). Vienna: Braumüller. Pp. 103–18.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga 2007b. Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Flores-Ferrán, Nydia 2014. So pues entonces: An examination of bilingual discourse markers in Spanish oral narratives of personal experience of New York City-born Puerto Ricans. Sociolinguistic Studies 8, 1: 57–83.Google Scholar
Frank-Job, Barbara 2006. A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In Fischer, Kerstin (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pp. 359–74.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce 1988. Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38: 19–33.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 3: 383–98.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6, 2: 167–90.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce 2009. Topic orientation markers. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 892–98.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce 2015. The combining of discourse markers: A beginning. Journal of Pragmatics 86: 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam and Östman, Jan-Ola 2005. Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1752–78.Google Scholar
Furkó, Bálint Péter 2007. The Pragmatic Marker – Discourse Marker Dichotomy Reconsidered: The Case of “well” and “of course.” Debrecen: Debrecen University Press.Google Scholar
Furkó, Bálint Péter 2014. Cooptation over grammaticalization. Argumentum 10: 289–300.Google Scholar
Furkó, Bálint Péter 2018. The boundaries of discourse markers: Drawing lines through manual and automatic annotation. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica, 10, 2: 155–70.Google Scholar
Fuschi, Laura 2013. Discourse Markers in Spoken Italian: The Functions of senti and guarda. PhD dissertation, University of Bielefeld.Google Scholar
Gaines, Philip 2011. The multifunctionality of discourse operator okay: Evidence from a police interview. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 3291–315.Google Scholar
Garachana, Mar 2018. New challenges to the theory of grammaticalization: Evidence from the rise of no obstante, no contrastante and no embargante. In Pons Bordería, Salvador and Lamas, Óscar Loureda (eds.), Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change (Studies in Pragmatics, 18). Leiden: Brill. Pp. 198–230.Google Scholar
Genette, Gérard 1982. Palimpsestes: la littérature au second degré. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A., Varner, K. R., and Faust, M. E. 1990. Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory, and Cognition 16, 3: 430–45.Google ScholarPubMed
Ghezzi, Chiara 2014. The development of discourse and pragmatic markers. In Ghezzi, Chiara and Molinelli, Piera (eds.), Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 10–26.Google Scholar
Ghezzi, Chiara and Molinelli, Piera (eds.) 2014. Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna and Mauri, Caterina 2011. The grammaticalization of coordinating interclausal connectives. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 653–64.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 7: 394–415.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1975. Focus and the scope of assertion: Some Bantu evidence. Studies in African Linguistics 6, 2: 185–207.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1991. The evolution of dependent clause morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, volume 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 257–310.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 2009. The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Ontogeny, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 2015. The Diachrony of Grammar. Two volumes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gohl, Christine and Günthner, Susanne 1999. Grammatikalisierung von weil als Diskursmarker in der gesprochenen Sprache. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 18, 1: 39–75.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gonen, Einat, Livnat, Zohar, and Amir, Noam 2015. The discourse marker axshav (“now”) in spontaneous spoken Hebrew: Discursive and prosodic features. Journal of Pragmatics 89, 1: 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González, Montserrat 2004. Pragmatic Markers in Oral Narrative: The Case of English and Catalan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goria, Eugenio 2016. The role of extra-linguistic constituents in bilingual speech. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien, and Lohmann, Arne (eds.), Outside the Clause (Studies in Language Companion Series, 178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 273–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goria, Eugenio 2017. Functional markers in llanito code-switching: Regular patterns in Gibraltar’s bilingual speech. In Fedriani, Chiara and Sansò, Andrea (eds.), Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles (Studies in Language Companion Series, 186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 439–58.Google Scholar
Görlach, Manfred 2001. A Dictionary of European Anglicisms: A Usage Dictionary of Anglicisms in Sixteen European Languages, XXV. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goss, Emily L. and Salmons, Joseph C. 2000. The evolution of bilingual discourse marking system: Modal particles and English markers in German–American dialects. International Journal of Bilingualism 4: 469–84.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay and Vrba, Elisabeth S. 1982. Exaptation: A missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8, 1: 4–15.Google Scholar
Grant, Anthony P. 2012. Contact, convergence, and conjunctions: a cross-linguistic study of borrowing correlations among certain kinds of discourse, phasal adverbial, and dependent clause markers. In Chamoreau, Claudine and Léglise, Isabelle (eds.), Cross-Linguistic Tendencies in Contact-Induced Change: A Typological Approach Based on Morphosyntactic Studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 311–58.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne 1999. Entwickelt sich der Konzessivkonnektor obwohl zum Diskursmarker? Grammatikalisierungstendenzen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Linguistische Berichte 180: 409–46.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne 2000. From concessive connector to discourse marker: The use of obwohl in everyday German interaction. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause-Condition-Concession-Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 439–68.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne and Mutz, Katrin 2004. Grammaticalization vs. pragmaticalization? The development of pragmatic markers in German and Italian. In Bisang, W., Himmelmann, N., and Wiemer, B. (eds.), What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 77–107.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane 1991. Parenthetical adverbials: The radical orphanage approach. In Chiba, S., Shuki, A., Ogawa, A., Fuiwara, Y., Yamada, N., Koma, O., and Yagi, T. (eds.), Aspects of Modern Linguistics: Papers Presented to Masatomo Ukaji on His 60th Birthday. Tokyo: Kaitakushi. Pp. 232–54.Google Scholar
Haiman, John 1994. Ritualization and the development of language. In Pagliuca, William (ed.), Perspectives on Grammaticalization (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, 109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli 1998. The use of Finnish nyt as a discourse particle. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Ziv, Yael (eds.), Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory (Pragmatics and Beyond, New Series, 57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancil, Sylvie 2013. Introduction. In: Hancil, Sylvie and Hirst, Daniel (eds.), Prosody and Iconicity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancil, Sylvie and Hirst, Daniel (eds.). 2013. Prosody and Iconicity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard 1997. Alors and donc in spoken French: A reanalysis. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 153–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard 1998a. The Function of Discourse Particles. A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard 1998b. The semantic status of discourse markers. Lingua 104, 3–4: 235–60.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard 1998c. La grammaticalisation de l’interaction, ou, Pour une approche polysémique de l’adverbe “bien.” Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique 4: 111–38.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard 2005a. From prepositional phrase to hesitation marker: The semantic and pragmatic evolution of French enfin. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6, 2: 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard 2005b. A comparative study of the semantics and pragmatics of French enfin and finalement, in synchrony and diachrony. French Language Studies 15: 153–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard 2008. Particles at the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface: Synchronic and Diachronic Issues. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander 2011. Discourse marker and modal particle: The functions of utterance-final then in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 3603–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haselow, Alexander 2013. Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica 47, 2: 375–424.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander 2015. Left vs. right periphery in grammaticalization: The case of anyway. In Smith, Andrew D. M., Trousdale, Graeme, and Waltereit, Richard (eds.), New Directions in Grammaticalization Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 157–86.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander 2016. A processual view on grammar: Macrogrammar and the final field in spoken syntax. Language Sciences 54: 77–101.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander 2017. Spontaneous Spoken English. An Integrated Approach to the Emergent Grammar of Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander 2019. Discourse markers and brain lateralization: Evidence for dual language processing from neurological disorders. Lecture presented at the University of Düsseldorf, December 15, 2019.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel, and Perridon, Harry (eds.), Up and Down the Cline – the Nature of Grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language, 59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 2011. The gradual coalescence into “words” in grammaticalization. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 342–55.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto and Yoon, Kyung-Eun 2006. A cross-linguistic exploration of demonstratives in interaction: With particular reference to the context of word-formulation trouble. Studies in Language 30: 485–540.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto and Yoon, Kyung-Eun 2010. A cross-linguistic exploration of demonstratives in interaction: With particular reference to the context of word-formulation trouble. In Amiridze, Nino, Davis, Boyd H., and Maclagan, Marboyegaret (eds.), Fillers, Pauses and Placeholders (Typological Studies in Language, 93). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 33–65.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 1992. Grammaticalization chains. Studies in Language 16, 2: 335–68.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, Ilse and Gabriele, Diewald (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language, 49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 83–101.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2003. On degrammaticalization. In Blake, Barry, Burridge, Kate, and Taylor, John (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2001. Selected papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Melbourne, August 13–17, 2001 (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science. Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 237). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 163–79.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2013. On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51, 6: 1205–47.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2016a. Language contact and extra-clausal constituents: The case of discourse markers. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien, and Lohmann, Arne (eds.), Outside the Clause (Studies in Language Companion Series, 178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 243–72.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2016b. On non-finiteness and canonical imperatives. In Chamoreau, Claudine and Estrada-Fernández, Zarina (eds.), Finiteness and Nominalization (Typological Studies in Language, 113). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 245–70.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2018a. Are there two different ways of approaching grammaticalization? In Hancil, Sylvie, Breban, Tine, and Lozano, José Vicente (eds.), New Trends on Grammaticalization and Language Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 23–54.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2018b. Grammaticalization in Africa: Two contrasting hypotheses. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), Grammaticalization from a Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 16–34.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2019. Some observations on the dualistic nature of discourse processing. Folia Linguistica 53, 2: 411–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Claudi, Ulrike 1986. On the Rise of Grammatical Categories: Some Examples from Maa (Kölner Beiträge zur Afrikanistik, 13). Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike and Hünnemeyer, Friederike 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, and Kuteva, Tania 2016. On insubordination and cooptation. In Evans, Nicholas and Watanabe, Honoré (eds.), Insubordination (Typological Studies in Language). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 39–63.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, Kuteva, Tania, and Long, Haiping 2013. An outline of discourse grammar. In Bischoff, Shannon and Jany, Carmen (eds.), Functional Approaches to Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 175–233.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, Kuteva, Tania, and Long, Haiping 2015. On Some Correlations between Grammar and Brain Lateralization (Oxford Handbooks Online in Linguistics). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, Kuteva, Tania, and Long, Haiping 2017. Cooptation as a discourse strategy. Linguistics 55, 4: 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, Kuteva, Tania, and Long, Haiping 2020. On the rise of discourse markers. In Hancil, Sylvie and Haselow, Alexander (eds.), Studies at the Grammar–Discourse Interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 23–55.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, König, Christa and Legère, Karsten 2017. A text study of discourse markers in Akie, a Southern Nilotic language of Tanzania. In Kramer, Raija and Kießling, Roland (eds.), Mechthildian Approaches to Afrikanistik: Advances in Language-Based Research on Africa, Festschrift für Mechthild Reh. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe. Pp. 147–67.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change (Cambridge Approaches to Language Contact, 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania 2007. The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction (Studies in the Evolution of Language, 9). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kuteva, Tania, and Kaltenböck, Gunther 2014. Discourse grammar, the dual process model, and brain lateralization: Some correlations. Language & Cognition 6, 1: 146–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kuteva, Tania, and Long, Haiping 2020. Dual process frameworks on reasoning and linguistic discourse: A comparison. In Alexander Haselow and Gunther Kaltenböck (eds.), Grammar and Cognition: Dualistic Models of Language Structure and Language Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Reh, Mechthild 1984. Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees 2017. A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization. In Hengelveld, Kees, Narrog, Heiko, and Olbertz, Hella (eds.), The Grammaticalization of Tense, Aspect, Modality and Evidentiality: A Functional Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 13–37.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees and Lachlan Mackenzie, J. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees and Lachlan Mackenzie, J. 2011. Functional Discourse Grammar. In Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 367–400.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin 2008. Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change (Constructional Approaches to Language, 7). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word-Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin and Saavedra, David Correia 2018. The unidirectionality of semantic changes in grammaticalization: An experimental approach to the asymmetric priming hypothesis. English Language and Linguistics 22, 3: 357–80.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus, and Wiemer, Björn (eds.), What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 19–40.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia and Litman, Diane 1993. Empirical studies on disambiguation of cue phrases. Computational Linguistics 19: 501–3.Google Scholar
Hlavac, Jim 2006. Bilingual discourse markers: Evidence from Croatian–English codeswitching. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1870–900.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. 1975. On assertive predicates. In Kimball, John (ed.), Syntax and Semantics IV. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 91–124.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, volume 1 (Typological Studies in Language, 19, 1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 17–35.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Grammaticalization, second, revised edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken 1998. Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 437–55.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken 2017. Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics 113: 16–29.Google Scholar
Ifantidou-Trouki, Elly 1993. Sentential adverbs and relevance. Lingua 90, 1–2: 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara 2002. Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1993. The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19, 5: 435–52.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1997. The discourse marker well in the history of English. English Language and Linguistics 1, 1: 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 2002. Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In Watts, Richard and Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Alternative Histories of English. London: Routledge. Pp. 210–30.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma 2000. Diachronic speech act analysis: Insults from flyting to flaming. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1, 1: 67–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Ziv, Yael 1998. Discourse markers: introduction. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Ziv, Yael (eds.), Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, 57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Kac, Michael B. 1970. Clauses of saying and the interpretation of because. Language 48, 3: 626–32.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther 2007. Spoken parenthetical clauses in English. In Dehé, Nicole and Kavalova, Yordanka (eds.), Parentheticals (Linguistics Today, 106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 25–52.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther 2008. Prosody and function of English comment clauses. Folia Linguistica 42, 1: 83–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther 2009. English comment clauses: Positions, prosody, and scope. AAA (Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik) 34, 1: 51–77.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther 2010. Pragmatic functions of parenthetial I think. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Mihatsch, Wiltrud, and Schneider, Stefan (eds.), New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley: Emerald Publishers. Pp. 243–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther 2013. The development of comment clauses. In Aarts, Bas, Close, Joanne, Leech, Geoffrey, and Wallis, Sean (eds.), The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Recent Language Change with Corpora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 286–317.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther 2016. On the grammatical status of insubordinate if-clauses. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien, and Lohmann, Arne (eds.), Outside the Clause (Studies in Language Companion Series, 178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 341–77.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35, 4: 848–93.Google Scholar
Kanaan, Layal 2012. jæʕne: un verbe parenthétique à la troisième personne? Paper presented at the conference on Les verbes parenthtétiques: hypotaxe, parataxe or parenthèse? Université Paris Ouest Nanterre, May 24–26, 2012.Google Scholar
Kavalova, Yordanka 2007. And-parenthetical clauses. In Dehé, Nicole and Kavalova, Yordanka, Parentheticals (Linguistics Today, 106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 145–72.Google Scholar
Kerouac, Jack 1958. The Subterraneans. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
Kibiki, Magreth J. 2019. The functions of the pragmatic marker “sawa” in spoken Swahili. Paper presented at the international conference on “Language – Culture – Literature: East African Perspective,” University of Warsaw, May 23–24, 2019.Google Scholar
Kim, Myung-Hee and Lee, Jeonghwa 2007. The role of subjectivity and intersubjectivity in the grammaticalization of icey in Korean. Discourse and Cognition 14, 2: 27–49.Google Scholar
Kim, Tae-Youb 2000. A type of discourse particle and changed discourse particle in Korean. Urimalgeul 19: 1–24.Google Scholar
Kitahara, Yasuo (editor in chief) 2006. Nihon Kokugo Daiijiten (The Dictionary of the Japanese Language). Tokyo: Shogakkan.Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian 2000. How report verbs become quote markers and complementisers. Lingua 110: 69–98.Google Scholar
Kleinknecht, Friederike and Souza, Miguel 2017. Vocatives as a source category for pragmatic markers: From deixis to discourse marking via affectivity. In Fedriani, Chiara and Sansò, Andrea (eds.), Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles (Studies in Language Companion Series, 186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 257–87.Google Scholar
König, Christa and Heine, Bernd 2019. Discourse markers in !Xun (W2 dialect). In Beyer, Klaus, Boden, Gertrud, Köhler, Bernhard, and Zoch, Ulrike (eds.), Linguistics across Africa: Festschrift for Rainer Vossen. Cologne: Köppe. Pp. 207–19.Google Scholar
Koo, Hyun Jung 2008. Grammaticalization of negation markers in Korean. Discourse and Cognition 15, 3: 1–27.Google Scholar
Koo, Hyun Jung and Rhee, Seongha 2018. On the emergence of polyfunctionality of discourse markers: The case of kulay “it is so” in Korean. Paper presented at the 36th International Conference of the Spanish Society for Applied Linguistics (AESLA-2018), Universidad de Cádiz, Cádiz, Spain, April 19–21, 2018.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja 2015. The impact of input and output domains: Towards a function-based categorization of types of grammaticalization. Language Sciences 47: 172–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Heine, Bernd, Hong, Bo, Long, Haiping, Narrog, Heiko, and Rhee, Seongha 2019. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, second extensively revised and updated edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lamiroy, Béatrice and Swiggers, P. 1991. Imperatives as discourse signals. In Fleischman, Suzanne and Waugh, L. R. (eds.), Discourse-Pragmatics and the Verb: The Evidence from Romance. London: Routledge. Pp. 121–46.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2011. Grammaticalization and cognitive grammar. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 79–91.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger 1990. How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 26: 79–102.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger 1997. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Han-gyu 1996. The pragmatics of the discourse particle kuray in Korean. Discourse and Cognition 3: 1–26.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian 1982. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. A Programmatic Sketch, volume 1. AKUP 48 (Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien-Projekts). Cologne: Universität zu Köln, Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian 2004. Theory and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 32, 2: 152–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian [1982] 2015. Thoughts on Grammaticalization, third edition (Classics in Linguistics, 1). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Lenk, Uta 1998. Marking Discourse Coherence: Functions of Discourse Markers in Spoken English. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula 2000. Soƥlice and witodlice: Discourse markers in Old English. In Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Anette, and Stein, Dieter (eds.). Pathways of Change. Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 229–49.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2006. Deixis. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory L. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. London: Blackwell. Pp. 87–120.Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana M. 2000. Some Emergent Discourse Connectives in English: Grammaticalization via Rhetorical Patterns. PhD dissertation, University of Oxford, Faculty of English Language.Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana M. 2007. From temporal to contrastive and causal: the emergence of connective after all. In Celle, Agnès and Huart, Ruth (eds.) 2007. Connectives as Discourse Landmarks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 89–99.Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana M. 2011. A discourse-constructional approach to the emergence of discourse markers in English. Linguistics 49, 2: 415–43.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. (ed.) 1975. Word Order and Word Order Change. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1974. An explanation of word order change SVO > SOV. Foundations of Language 12: 201–14.Google Scholar
Lipsky, John M. 2005. Code-switching or borrowing? No sé so no puedo decir, you know. In Sayahi, Lofti and Westermoreland, Maurice (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Livescu, Michaela 2014. Mă rog: A pragmatic marker in Romanian. In Fedriani, Chiara and Sansò, Andrea (eds.), Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles (Studies in Language Companion Series, 186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 86–108.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José and Méndez-Naya, Belén 2014. From clause to pragmatic marker: A study of the development of like parentheticals in American English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 15, 1: 36–61.Google Scholar
Lyons, John 1977. Semantics, 2 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maclay, Howard and Osgood, Charles E. 1959. Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word 15: 19–44.Google Scholar
Mann, William C. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1987. Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization (ISI Report RS-87-190). Marina del Rey, CA: Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Maschler, Yael 1994. Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society 23: 325–66.Google Scholar
Maschler, Yael 2000. What can bilingual conversation tell us about discourse markers? International Journal of Bilingualism 4, 4: 437–45.Google Scholar
Maschler, Yael 2009. Metalanguage in Interaction: Hebrew Discourse Markers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Matasović, Rolf 2008. Patterns of grammaticalization and the layered structure of the clause. In Kailuweit, Rolf, Wiemer, Björn, Staudinger, E., and Matasović, Rolf (eds.), New Applications of Role and Reference Grammar: Diachrony, Grammaticalization, Romance Languages. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Pp. 45–57.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron 1998. Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics 36: 281–331.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron 2009. Language Contact (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo 1988. From bound grammatical markers to free discourse markers: History of some Japanese connectives. In Axmaker, Shelley, Jaisser, Annie, and Singmaster, Helen (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Pp. 340–51.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. 2007. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matzen, Laura 2004. Discourse markers and prosody: A case study of so. LACUS Forum 30: 73–94.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna 2010. Discourse reflexivity – A discourse universal? The case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9, 2: 13–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehan, Teresa 1991. It’s like “What’s happening in the evolution of like?”: A theory of grammaticalization. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 37–51.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine [1912] 1958. L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia (Rivista di Scienza) 12: 26, 6. Reprinted in Meillet, Antoine 1958. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale (Collection Linguistique publiée par la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 8.) Paris: Champion. Pp. 130–48.Google Scholar
Méndez-Naya, Belén 2006. Adjunct, modifier, discourse marker: On the various functions of right in the history of English. Folia Linguistica Historica 27, 1–2: 141–95.Google Scholar
Méndez-Naya, Belén 2019. Of right heirs, right idiots and bad data: The diachrony of the intensifying adjective right. Studia Neophilologica 91, 3: 273–95.Google Scholar
Miyashita, Hiroyuki 2003. Weil, obwohl, während und wobei: Warum werden sie V2-Konjunktionen und nicht andere? Energeia 28: 59–81.Google Scholar
Mkhatshwa, Simon Nyana Leon 1991. Metaphorical extensions as a basis for grammaticalization. With special reference to Zulu auxiliary verbs. MA Thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria.Google Scholar
Morita, Yoshiyuki 1973. Kandooshi no hensen (The change of interjections). In Suzuki, K. and Hayashi, O. (eds.), Setsuzokushi.Kandooshi (Conjunctions.Interjections) [Hinshibetsu Nihonbunpoo Kooza, 6]. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Pp. 177–208.Google Scholar
Moyer, Melissa G. 2000. Negotiating agreement and disagreement in Spanish–English bilingual conversations with no. International Journal of Bilingualism 4, 4: 485–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Max 1861. Lectures on the Science of Language, volume 1. London: Longmans, Green.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter 2013. Language contact outcomes as the result of bilingual optimization strategies. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition Online 2013: 1–22.Google Scholar
Nakayama, Toshihide and Ichihashi-Nakayama, Kumiko 1997. Japanese kedo: Discourse genre and grammaticization. In Sohn, Ho-min and Haig, John (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, volume 6. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Pp. 607–18.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko 2020. Scope and Unidirectionality in Grammaticalization: The Anatomy and History of a Misunderstanding. Lecture presented at Tohoku University, Sendai, September 2020.Google Scholar
Nicolle, Steve 2012. Diachrony and grammaticalization. In Binnick, Robert (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 370–97.Google Scholar
Noora, Azam and Amouzadeh, Mohammad 2015. Grammaticalization of Yæ’ni in Persian. International Journal of Language Studies 9, 1: 91–122.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel 2012. Lehmann’s parameters revisited. In Davidse, K., Breban, T., Brems, L., and Mortelmans, T. (eds.), Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 73–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel and Beijering, Karin 2014. Facing interfaces: A clustering approach to grammaticalization and related changes. Folia Linguistica 48, 2: 385–424.Google Scholar
Norrick, Neal R. 2009. Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 866–91.Google Scholar
Nzoimbengene, Philippe 2016. Les “discourse markers” en lingála de Kinshasa oral: Étude sémantique et pragmatique sur base d’un corpus de lingála de Kinshasa oral. PhD dissertation, Université Catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
Ocampo, Francisco 2006. Movement towards discourse is not grammaticalization: The evolution of claro from adjective to discourse particle in spoken Spanish. In Sagarra, Nuria and Toribio, Almeida Jacqueline (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Pp. 308–19.Google Scholar
Olshtain, Elite and Blum-Kulka, Shoshana 1989. Happy Hebrish: Mixing and switching in American Israeli family interaction. In Gass, Susan M., Madden, Carolyn, Preston, Dennis, and Selinker, Larry (eds.), Variation in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pp. 59–83.Google Scholar
Onodera, Noriko Okada. 1993. Pragmatic Change in Japanese: Conjunctions and Interjections as Discourse Markers. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Onodera, Noriko Okada. 1995. Diachronic analysis of Japanese discourse markers. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 393–437.Google Scholar
Onodera, Noriko Okada. 2000. The development of demo type connectives and na elements: Two extremes of Japanese discourse markers. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1, 1: 27–55.Google Scholar
Onodera, Noriko Okada. 2004. Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronic and Diachronic Discourse Analysis (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onodera, Noriko Okada. 2007. Interplay of (inter)subjectivity and social norm. In Onodera, Noriko Okada and Suzuki, Ryoko (eds.), Historical Changes in Japanese. Special Issue of Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8, 2: 239–67.Google Scholar
Onodera, Noriko Okada. 2011. The grammaticalization of discourse markers. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 611–20.Google Scholar
O’Connell, Daniel C. and Kowal, Sabine 2004. The history of research on the filled pause as evidence of The written language bias in linguistics (Linell, 1982). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 33: 459–74.Google Scholar
O’Connell, Daniel C. and Kowal, Sabine 2005. Uh and um revisited: Are they interjections for signaling delay? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34: 555–76.Google Scholar
O’Connell, Daniel C., Kowal, Sabine, and Ageneau, C. 2005. Interjections in interviews. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34: 153–71.Google Scholar
O’Connell, Daniel C. and Kowal, Sabine 2008. Cognition and Language: A Series in Psycholinguistics. Communicating with One Another: Toward a Psychology of Spontaneous Spoken Discourse. Berlin: Springer Science + Business Media.Google Scholar
Palander-Collin, Minna 1999. Grammaticalization and Social Embedding: I THINK and METHINKS in Middle and Early Modern English (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique, Tome LV). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Park, Jung-ran 2001. Politeness: The Korean discourse marker ceki. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 5, 2: 297–319.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew 1992. Formulaic speech. In Bright, William H. (ed.), Oxford International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, volume 2. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 22–25.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew 2009. Grammarians’ languages versus humanists’ languages and the place of speech act formulas in models of linguistic competence. In Corrigan, Roberta, Moravcsik, Edith A., Ouali, Hamid, and Wheatley, Kathleen M. (eds.), Formulaic Language. Volume 1: Distribution and Historical Change (Typological Studies in Language, 82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 3–26.Google Scholar
Pinto de Lima, José 2002. Grammaticalization, subjectification and the origin of phatic markers. In Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 363–78.Google Scholar
Pons Bordería, Salvador 2018. Introduction: New insights in grammaticalization studies. In Bordería, Salvador Pons and Lamas, Óscar Loureda (eds.), Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change (Studies in Pragmatics, 18). Leiden: Brill. Pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Pons Bordería, Salvador and Lamas, Óscar Loureda (eds.) 2018. Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change (Studies in Pragmatics, 18). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana 1980. Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English Y TERMINO EN ESPAÑOL: Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics 18, 7–8: 581–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana 2018. Borrowing: Loanwords in the Speech Community and in the Grammar. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Prat, Chantel S., Long, Debra L., and Baynes, Kathleen 2007. The representation of discourse in the two hemispheres: An individual differences investigation. Brain and Language 100, 3: 283–94.Google Scholar
Prévost, Sophie 2011. A propos from verbal complement to discourse marker: a case of grammaticalization? Linguistics 49, 2: 391–413.Google Scholar
Prévost, Sophie and Fagard, Benjamin 2018. French à la rigeur: A sharp turn. Journal of Pragmatics 129: 220–32.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo 1992. Thoughts on degrammaticalization. Linguistics 30: 549–60.Google Scholar
Redeker, Gisela 1991. Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics 29: 1139–72.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya 1983. Point of view in language: The use of parentheticals. In Rauh, Gisa (ed.), Essays on Deixis. Tübingen: Narr. Pp. 169–94.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 1996. Semantic Verbs and Grammaticalization: The Development in Korean from a Crosslinguistic Perspective. PhD dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2003. When “no” does not mean “no”: Grammaticalization of discourse markers and auxiliaries from rhetorical negations. Journal of Linguistic Science 27: 269–90.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2004. From discourse to grammar: Grammaticalization and lexicalization of rhetorical questions in Korean. In Fulton, Gordon, Sullivan, William J., and Lommel, Arle R. (eds.), LACUS: Forum XXX: Language, Thought and Reality. Houston: Lacus. Pp. 413–23.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2013. “I know I’m shameless to say this”: Grammaticalization of the mitigating discourse marker makilay in Korean. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 97: 480–86.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2015. On the emergence of Korean markers of agreement. Journal of Pragmatics 83: 10–26.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2018a. On the emergence and pragmatic functions of discourse markers of interruption: A case in Korean. Paper presented at the 22nd Sociolinguistics Symposium, The University of Auckland, New Zealand, June 27–30, 2018.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2018b. On multiple determinants of discourse marker functions: Peripheral asymmetry revisited. Paper presented at the 20th International Congress of Linguists, Cape Town International Convention Center, South Africa, July 2–6, 2018.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2018c. On the emergence of discourse markers of emphasis in Korean. Paper presented at the 26th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference, University of California, Los Angeles, November 29–December 1, 2018.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2018d. Grammaticalization of the plural marker in Korean: From object to text to stance. Journal of Language Sciences 25, 4: 221–49.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2019. On determinants of discourse marker functions: Grammaticalization and discourse-analytic perspectives. Paper presented at the 21st International Circle of Korean Linguistics Conference, Monash University, Melbourne, July 10–12, 2019.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2020a. Pseudo-hortative and the development of the discourse marker eti poca (“well, let’s see”) in Korean. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 21, 1: 53–82.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2020b. On the many faces of coarseness: The case of Korean mak “coarsely.” Journal of Pragmatics 170: 396–412.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha and Koo, Hyun Jung 2019. On divergent paths and functions of “background”-based discourse markers in Korean. Paper presented at the International Conference on Current Trends in Linguistics, Université de Rouen, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France, March 28–29, 2019.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 2008. From “quickly” to “fairly”: On the history of rather. English Language and Linguistics 12, 2: 345–59.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian G. 1993. A formal account of grammaticalisation in the history of Romance futures. Folia Linguistica Historica 13: 219–58.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian G. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne and Lange, Deborah 1991. The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech 66, 3: 227–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John Robert 1973. Slifting. In Gross, Maurice, Halle, Morris, and Schützenberger, Marcel-Paul (eds.), The Formal Analysis of Natural Languages: Proceedings of the First International Conference. The Hague, Paris: Mouton. Pp. 133–69.Google Scholar
Rossari, Corinne 2006. Grammaticalization and persistence phenomena in two hybrid discourse markers: la preuve and regarde. Acta linguistica hafniensia, vol 38, SI: 161–79.Google Scholar
Rouchota, Villy 1996. Discourse connectives: What do they link? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 1–15.Google Scholar
Rouchota, Villy 1998. Procedural meaning and parenthetical discourse markers. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Ziv, Yael (eds.), Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 97–126.Google Scholar
Ruhi, Şükriye 2009. The pragmatics of yani as a parenthetical marker in Turkish: Evidence from the METU Turkish Corpus. Working Papers in Corpus-based Linguistics and Language Education 3: 285–98.Google Scholar
Rysová, Magdaléna 2017. Discourse connectives: From historical origin to presentday development. In Menzel, Katrin, Lapshinova-Koltunski, Ekaterina, and Kunz, Kerstin (eds.), New Perspectives on Cohesion and Coherence. Berlin: Language Science Press. Pp. 11–35.Google Scholar
Salmons, Joseph 1990. Bilingual discourse marking: code-switching, borrowing and convergence in some German–American dialects. Linguistics 29: 453–80.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David and Poplack, Shana 1981. A formal grammar for code-switching. Papers in Linguistics 14, 1–4: 3–45.Google Scholar
Saxena, Anju 1988. The case of the verb ‘say’ in Tibeto-Burman. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 375–88.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah 1987. Discourse Markers (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics, 5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, Stefan 2007a. Reduced parenthetical clauses in Romance languages. In Dehé, Nicole and Kavalova, Yordanka (eds.), Parentheticals (Linguistics Today, 106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 237–58.Google Scholar
Schneider, Stefan 2007b. Reduced Parenthetical Clauses as Mitigators: A Corpus Study of Spoken French, Italian and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence 1985. Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence 1999. Discourse markers. Lingua 107: 227–65.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence 2001 Rethinking well. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1025–60.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence 2011. The discourse marker now: A relevance-theoretic approach. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 8: 2110–29.Google Scholar
Schreiber, Henning 2014. Imports and exports in linguistic markets in the West African Sahel. In de Féral, Carole, Kossmann, Maarten, and Tosco, Mauro (eds.), In and Out of Africa. Languages in Question: In Honour of Robert Nicolaï, volume 2: Language Contact and Language Change in Africa. Leuven: Peeters. Pp. 251–68.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A. 1996. Some reflections on o sea: A discourse marker in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 25, 6: 855–74.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A. and Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1995. The semantic and pragmatic development of substitutive complex prepositions in English. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 244–73.Google Scholar
Shibasaki, Reijirou 2018a. From the inside to the outside of the sentence: Forming a larger discourse unit with jijitsu “fact.” In Hancil, Sylvie, Breban, Tine, and Lozano, José Vicente (eds.), New Trends on Grammaticalization and Language Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 333–60.Google Scholar
Shibasaki, Reijirou 2018b. On the rise of Douride “no wonder” as a projector and the reformulation of discourse sequential relations in Japanese. In Fukuda, S., Kim, M. S., and Park, M.-J. (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, volume 25. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Pp. 383–95.Google Scholar
Shibasaki, Reijirou 2019. From nominal predicates to pragmatic markers. Paper presented at the conference on Current Trends in Linguistics. Université de Rouen, March 27–28, 2019.Google Scholar
Shibasaki, Reijirou 2020. From a clause-combining conjunction to a sentence-initial adverbial connector in the history of Japanese: With special attention to totan(-ni) “at the moment.” In Fukuda, S., Kim, M. S., and Park, M.-J. (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, volume 26. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Pp. 87–104.Google Scholar
Shinzato, Rumiko 2017. Grammaticalization of PMs/DMs/MMs in Japanese. In Fedriani, Chiara and Sansò, Andrea (eds.), Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles (Studies in Language Companion Series, 186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 305–33.Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie 2007. No doubt and related expresssions. In Hannay, Mike and Steen, Gerard J. (eds.), Structural–Functional Studies in English Grammar: In Honour of Lachlan Mackenzie (Studies in Language Companion Series, 83). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 9–34.Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie and Willems, Dominique 2011. Crosslinguistic data as evidence in the grammaticalization debate: The case of discourse markers. Linguistics 49, 2: 333–64.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock S. and Kim, Jieun 2008. A corpus-based discourse analysis of Korean icey: A synchronic and diachronic analysis. Korean Linguistics 14: 177–202.Google Scholar
Specker, Elizabeth 2008.The use of bilingual discourse markers: Identity in mediated learning. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching 15: 97–120.Google Scholar
Stein, Dieter 1985. Discourse Markers in Early Modern English. In Eaton, R. et al. (eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 283-302.Google Scholar
Stein, Dieter 1990. The semantics of syntactic change. Stylistic, natural, and varietal factors in the development of English "do": A case study. Series Trends in Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stein, Dieter 2020. Atomizing linguistic change. Linguistic change: A radical view. In Drinka, Bridget (ed.), Historical Linguistics 2017. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 321–43.Google Scholar
Stolz, Christel and Stolz, Thomas 1996. Funktionswortentlehnung in Mesoamerika: Spanisch-amerindischer Sprachkontakt (Hispanoindiana II). Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49, 1: 86–123.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas 2007. Allora: On the recurrence of function-word borrowing in contact situations with Italian as donor language. In Rehbein, Jochen, Hohenstein, Christiane, and Pietsch, Lukas (eds.), Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen 2002. Grammars, words, and embodied meanings: On the uses and evolution of so and like. Journal of Communication 52, 3: 581–96.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Ryoko 1998. From a lexical noun to an utterance-final pragmatic particle: wake. In Ohori, Toshio (ed.), Studies in Japanese Grammaticalization: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Pp. 67–92.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Ryoko 2006. How does “reason” become less and less reasonable?: Pragmatics of the utterance-final wake in conversational discourse. In Suzuki, Satoko (ed.), Emotive Communication in Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 35–51.Google Scholar
Svartvik, Jan (ed.) 1990. The London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research (Lund Studies in English, 82). Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Swan, Toril 1982. A note on the scope(s) of sadly. Studia Linguistica 36, 2: 31–40.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve Eliot 1987. Metaphorical models of thought and speech: A comparison of historical directions and metaphorical mappings in the two domains. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 446–59.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve Eliot 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. In Axmaker, Shelley, Jaisser, Annie, and Singmaster, Helen (eds.), Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: General Session and Parasession on Grammaticalization. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Pp. 389–405.Google Scholar
Tabor, Whitney and Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In Giacalone Ramat, Anna and Hopper, Paul J. (eds.), The Limits of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 229–72.Google Scholar
Taglicht, Josef 2001. Actually, there’s more to it than meets the eye. English Language and Linguistics 5, 1: 1–16.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Hidemitsu 2012. A Cognitive Linguistic Analysis of the English Imperative: With Special Reference to Japanese Imperatives (Human Cognitive Processing, 35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 1989. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Mulac, Anthony 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, volume 2 (Typological Studies in Language, 19, 2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 313–29.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Suzuki, Ryoko 2011. Grammaticalization of final particles. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 665–77.Google Scholar
Torres, Lourdes 2002. Bilingual discourse markers in Puerto Rican Spanish. Language in Society 31: 61–83.Google Scholar
Torres, Lourdes 2006. Bilingual discourse markers in indigenous languages. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9: 615–24.Google Scholar
Torres, Lourdes and Potowski, Kim 2008. A comparative study of bilingual discourse markers in Chicago Mexican, Puerto Rican, and MexiRican Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism 12: 263–67.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel 2011. Uh and um as sociolinguistic markers in British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16: 173–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel 2014. On the use of uh and um in American English. Functions of Language 21: 6–29.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel 2015. Uh and um in British and American English: Are they words? Evidence from co-occurrence with pauses. In Torres Cacoullos, Rena, Dion, Nathalie, and Lapierre, André (eds.), Linguistic Variation: Confronting Fact and Theory. New York: Routledge. Pp. 38–55.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel 2016. Planning what to say: Uh and um among the pragmatic markers. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien, and Lohmann, Arne (eds.), Outside the Clause (Studies in Language Companion Series, 178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 97–122.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, Winfred and Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Directions for Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 245–71.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. In Axmaker, Shelley, Jaisser, Annie, and Singmaster, Helen (eds.), Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: General Session and Parasession on Grammaticalization. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Pp. 406–16.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65, 1: 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the International Conference of Historical Linguistics XII, Manchester.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Pp. 624–47.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2007. Discussion article: Discourse markers, modal particles, and contrastive analysis, synchronic and diachronic. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 139–57.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2008. The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns. In Bergs, Alexander and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 23–46.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2014. Intersubjectification and clause periphery. In Brems, Lieselotte, Ghesquère, Lobke, and Van de Velde, Freek (eds.), Intersubjectivity and Intersubjectification in Grammar and Discourse: Theoretical and Descriptive Advances. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 7–27.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2015. Investigating “periphery” from a functionalist perspective. Linguistics Vanguard 1, 1: 119–30.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2016. On the rise of types of clause-final pragmatic markers in English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17: 26–54.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2018. Modeling language change with constructional networks. In Pons Bordería, Salvador and Lamas, Óscar Loureda (eds.), Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change (Studies in Pragmatics, 18). Leiden: Brill. Pp. 17–50.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs in press a. Is back to my point a pragmatic marker? An inquiry into the historical development of some metatextual discourse management markers in English. Journal of Catalan Linguistics.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs in press b. Combinations of metatextual markers: A historical perspective. Journal of Pragmatics.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme. 2014. Contentful constructionalization. Journal of Historical Linguistics 4, 2: 254–82.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme 2008. Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate in English. In Trousdale, Graeme and Gisborne, Nikolas (eds.), Constructional Approaches to English Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 33–67.Google Scholar
Underhill, Robert 1988. Like is, like focus. American Speech 63: 234–46.Google Scholar
Unger, Christoph 1996. The scope of discourse connectives: Implications for discourse organization. Journal of Linguistics 32: 403–39.Google Scholar
Urmson, J. O. 1952. Parenthetical verbs. Mind, New Series 61, 244: 480–96.Google Scholar
van Bogaert, Julie 2011. I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics 49, 2: 295–332.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. 1980. Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly 1993. The Rise of Functional Categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana 2009. Formulaic and novel language in a “dual process” model of language competence: Evidence from surveys, speech samples, and schemata. In Corrigan, Roberta, Moravcsik, Edith A., Ouali, Hamid, and Wheatley, Kathleen M. (eds.), Formulaic Language. Volume 2: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations (Typological Studies in Language, 83). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 445–70.Google Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana 2012. Formulaic language and language disorders. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 62–80.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. and LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vincent, Diane 2005. The journey of non-standard discourse markers in Quebec French: Networks based on exemplification. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6, 2: 188–210.Google Scholar
Vincent, Diane, Votre, Sebastião, and LaForest, Marty 1993. Grammaticalisation et post-grammaticalisation. Langues et Linguistique 19: 71–103.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob 1897. Vermischte Beiträge zur griechischen Sprachkunde. In Programm zur Rektoratsfeier der Universität Basel. Basel: Universität Basel. Pp. 3–62.Google Scholar
Waltereit, Richard 2001. Modal particles and their functional equivalents: A speech act–theoretic approach. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1391–417.Google Scholar
Waltereit, Richard 2002. Imperatives, interruption in conversation and the rise of discourse markers: A study of Italian guarda. Linguistics 40, 5: 987–1010.Google Scholar
Waltereit, Richard 2006. The rise of discourse markers in Italian: A specific type of language change. In Fischer, Kerstin (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Markers (Studies in Pragmatics, 1). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pp. 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Honoré 2010. Fillers and their relevance in describing Sliammon Salish. In Amiridze, Nino, Davis, Boyd H., and Maclagan, Margaret (eds.), Fillers, Pauses and Placeholders (Typological Studies in Language, 93). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 173–87.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel [1966] 1989. On the semantic structure of language. In Labov, William and Weinreich, Beatrice S. (eds.), Uriel Weinreich: On Semantics. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press. Pp. 37–96.Google Scholar
Weydt, Harald 1969. Abtönungspartikel. Bad Homburg: Gehlen.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne 2011. Grammaticalization and prosody. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 331–41.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne, Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, and Aijmer, Karin 2010. How prosody reflects semantic change: a synchronic case study of of course. In Cuyckens, Hubert, Davidse, Kristin, and Vandelanotte, Lieven (eds.) Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalisation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 103–53.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn 2014. Quo vadis grammaticalization theory?, or: Why complex language change is like words. Folia Linguistica 48, 2: 425–67.Google Scholar
Wilkins, David P. 1992. Interjections as deictics. Journal of Pragmatics 18: 119–58.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre 2011. The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. In Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M., and Ahern, A. (eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. Pp. 3–31.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald 2003. An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Code Switching: Linguistic Aspects. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Pp. 126–67.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse 2000. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization: “Methinks” there is some confusion. In Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Anette, and Stein, Dieter (eds.), Pathways of Change. Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 355–70.Google Scholar
Witosz, Božena 2017. Metatext in the discourse of the theory of text, stylistics and pragmalinguistics. Forum Lingwistyczne 4: 107–12.Google Scholar
Wolfenden, E. P. 1971. Hiligaynon Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 1983. Bilingual code-switching and syntactic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 520–36.Google Scholar
Yliniemi, Juha 2019. A Descriptive Grammar of Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia). PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Zhang, M. 2016. A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across written registers. Discourse Studies 18, 2: 204–22.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61, 2: 283–305.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×