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-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T20:28:05.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2017

Alexander Haselow
Alexander Haselow
Affiliation:
Universität Rostock, Germany
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
Spontaneous Spoken English
An Integrated Approach to the Emergent Grammar of Speech
 , pp. 296 - 322
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

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

Aijmer, Karin. 1986. Why is actually so popular in spoken English? In Tottie, Gunnel & Bäcklund, Ingegerd (eds.), English in speech and writing: A symposium. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 119–127.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English discourse particles. Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 2016. Pragmatic markers as constructions. The case of anyway. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien & Lohmann, Arne (eds.), Outside the clause – Form and function of extra-clausal constituents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almor, Amit. 1999. Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review 106, 748–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, Gerry T. & Kamide, Yuki. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73 (3), 247–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ameka, Felix. 1992. Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 18, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John R., Reder, Lynne M. & Lebiere, Christian. 1996. Working memory: Activation limits on retrieval. Cognitive Psychology 30 (3), 221–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antomo, Mailin & Steinbach, Markus. 2010. Desintegration und Interpretation: Weil-V2- Sätze an der Schnittstelle zwischen Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 29 (1), 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1991. The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar. Journal of Pragmatics 16, 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2008. Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer, Fagnano, Maria & Tanenhaus, Michael K.. 2003. Disfluencies signal theee, um, new information. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Auer, Peter, 1996a. The pre-front field in spoken German and its relevance as a grammaticalization position. Pragmatics 6 (3), 295–322.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 1996b. On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations. In Couper- Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Selting, Margret (eds.), Prosody in conversation. Interactional studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2000. On-line syntax – oder: Was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der mündlichen Sprache ernst zu nehmen. Sprache und Literatur 85, 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2005. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25 (1), 7–36.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2009. On-line syntax: thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31 (1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2015. The temporality of language in interaction: Projection and latency. In Deppermann, Arnulf & Günthner, Susanne (eds.), Temporality in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 27–56.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter & Maschler, Yael. 2013. Discourse or grammar? VS patterns in spoken Hebrew and spoken German narratives. Language Sciences 37, 147–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter & Pfänder, Stefan (eds.). 2011. Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baars, Bernard J. 1988. A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baars, Bernard J. 1997. In the theater of consciousness: The workspace of the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baars, Bernard J. 1998. Metaphors of consciousness and attention in the brain. Trends in Neurosciences 21, 58–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, Alan D. 1981. The role of subvocalisation in reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 33A, 439–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, Alan D. 1986. Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, Alan D. 2000. The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4, 417–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, Alan D. 2002. Is working memory still working? European Psychologist 7 (2), 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, Alan D. 2003. Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders 36, 189–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, Alan D. & Hitch, Graham J.. 2000. Development of working memory: Should the Pascual-Leone and the Baddeley and Hitch models be merged? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 77 (2), 128–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, Alan D. & Logie, Robert H.. 1999. The multi-component model. In Miyake, Akira & Shah, Priti (eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 28–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1986 [1978]. The problem of speech genres. In Emerson, Caryl & Holquist, Michael (eds.), Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press, 60–102.Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J. 2001. Trouble in mind: Paralinguistic indices of effort and uncertainty in communication. In Cavé, Christian, Guaïtella, Isabelle & Santi, Serge (eds.), Oralié et gestualité, communication multimodale, interaction. Paris: L’Harmattan, 597–600.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar. 2014. Dialogism and the emergence of final particles: The case of ‘and’. In Günthner, Susanne, Imo, Wolfgang & Bücker, Jörg (eds.), Grammar and dialogism. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 335–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrouillet, Pierre, Bernardin, Sophie & Camos, Valérie. 2004. Time constraints and resource sharing in adults’ working memory spans. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 133 (1), 83–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beattie, Geoff. 1979. Planning units in spontaneous speech: some evidence from hesitation in speech and speaker gaze direction in conversation. Linguistics 17, 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckner, Clay & Bybee, Joan. 2009. A usage-based account of constituency and reanalysis. Language Learning 59, 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate & Detges, Ulrich. 2014. Introduction. In Beeching, Kate & Detges, Ulrich (eds.), Discourse functions at the right and left periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Leiden: Brill, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beeman, Mark & Chiarello, Christine. 1998. Complementary right- and left-hemisphere language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 7 (1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, David. 1998. Cancellative discourse markers: A core/periphery approach. Pragmatics 8 (4), 515–542.Google Scholar
Bernal, Byron & Ardila, Alfredo. 2014. Bilateral representation of language: A critical review and analysis of some unusual cases. Journal of Neurolinguistics 28, 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berrendonner, Alain. 1990. Pour une macro-syntaxe. Travaux de Linguistique 21, 25–36.Google Scholar
Berrendonner, Alain. 2002. Les deux syntaxes. Verbum 24 (1–2), 23–36.Google Scholar
Bernini, Giuliano & Schwartz, Marcia L. (eds.). 2006. Pragmatic organization of discourse. [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, Eurotype 20–8]. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written english. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Blake, Margaret Lehman. 2006. Clinical relevance of discourse characteristics after right hemisphere brain damage. American Journal of Speech–Language Pathology 15 (3), 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Margaret Lehman. 2009. Inferencing processes after right hemisphere brain damage: effects of contextual bias. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 52 (2), 373–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 2003. Le recouvrement de la syntaxe et de la macro-syntaxe. In Scarano, Antonietta (ed.), Macro-syntaxe et pragmatique. L’analyse linguistique de l’oral. Roma: Bulzoni, 53–75.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire, Bilger, Mireille, Rouget, Christine & Van den Eynde, Karel. 1990. Le français parlé: études grammaticales. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Blanken, Gerhard. 1991. The functional basis of speech automatisms (recurring utterances). Aphasiology 5, 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanken, Gerhard, Wallesch, Claus W. & Papagno, Constanza. 1990. Dissociations of language functions in aphasics with speech automatisms (recurring utterances). Cortex 26, 41–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blonder, Lee Xenakis, Bowers, Dawn & Heilman, Kenneth M.. 1991. The role of the RH in emotional communication. Brain 114 (3), 1115–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, Kathryn. 1982. Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review 89, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, Kathryn 1987. Co-ordinating words and syntax in speech plans. In Ellis, Andrew W. (ed.), Progress in the psychology of language. London: Erlbaum, 337–390.Google Scholar
Bock, Kathryn & Irwin, David E.. 1980. Syntactic effects of information availability in sentence formulation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19, 467–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, Kathryn & Levelt, William J.M.. 1994. Language production: grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, Morton A. (ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego: Academic Press, 945–984.Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina. 2006. Little words that matter: discourse markers “so” and “oh” and the doing of other-attentiveness in social interaction. Journal of Communication 56, 661–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolden, Galina. 2008. “So what’s up?”: using the discourse marker “so” to launch conversational business. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (3), 302–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1976. Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 1, 1–14.Google Scholar
Bookheimer, Susan. 2002. Functional MRI of language: new approaches to understanding the cortical organization of semantic processing. Annual Review of Neuroscience 25 (1), 151–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borod, Joan C., Bloom, Ronald, Brickman, Adam, Nakhutina, Luba & Curko, Elizabeth. 2002. Emotional processing deficits in individuals with unilateral brain damage. Applied Neuropsychology, 9 (1), 23–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bottini, Gabriella, Corcoran, Rhiannon, Sterzi, Roberto, Paulesu, Eraldo, Schenone, Pietro, Scarpa, Pina, Frackowiak, Richard & Frith, C. D.. 1994. The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language: A positron emission tomography activation study. Brain 117, 1241–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper. 2012. Epistemic Meaning. A crosslinguistic functional-cognitive study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, John L. & Mattingley, Jason B.. 1995. Clinical neuropsychology: Behavioral and brain science. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brady, Marian, Armstrong, Linda & Mackenzie, Catherine. 2006. An examination over time of language and discourse production abilities following right hemisphere brain damage. Journal of Neurolinguistics 19 (4), 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brazil, David. 1995. A grammar of speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brenning, Jana. 2015. Syntaktische Ko-konstruktionen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English. Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briz, Antonio. 2001. El español coloquial en la conversación. Esbozo de pragmagramática. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Broadbent, Donald E. 1958. Perception and communication. London: Pergamon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownell, Hiram H., Potter, Heather H., Bihrle, Amy M. & Gardner, Howard. 1986. Inference deficits in right brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language 27 (2), 310–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brownell, Hiram H. & Joanette, Yves (eds.). 1993. Narrative discourse in neurological impaired and normal aging adults. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Buchsbaum, Bradley, Hickok, Gregory & Humphries, Colin. 2001. Role of left posterior superior temporal gyrus in phonological processing for speech perception and production. Cognitive Sciences 25, 663–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burklund, Charles W. & Smith, Aaron. 1977. Language and the cerebral hemispheres. Neurology 27, 627–633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burton-Roberts, Noel. 2006. Parentheticals. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 9. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 179–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, David, Stanczak, Louise & Waters, Gloria. 2008. Syntactic and thematic constraint effects on blood oxygenation level dependent signal correlates of comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20, 643–656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caplan, Rochelle & Dapretto, Mirella. 2001. Making sense during conversation: An fMRI study. Neuroreport 12 (16), 3625–3632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carreiras, Manuel, Pattamadilok, Chotiga, Meseguer, Enrique, Barber, Horacio & Devlin, Joseph T.. 2012. Broca’s area plays a causal role in morphosyntactic processing. Neuropsychologia 50, 816–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Ruth. 2008. Historical English phraseology and the extender tag. Selim 15, 7–37.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2004. Explicature and semantics. In Davis, Steven & Gillon, Brendan (eds.), Semantics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 817–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1992. Intonation units and prominences in English natural discourse. Proceedings of the IRCS Workshop on prosody in natural speech, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, Report No. 92–37. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time. The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 2012. From thoughts to sounds. In Gee, James P. & Handford, Michael (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. New York: Routledge, 357–265.Google Scholar
Champagne-Lavau, Maud & Joanette, Yves. 2009. Pragmatics, theory of mind and executive functions after a right-hemisphere lesion: Different patterns of deficits. Journal of Neurolinguistics 22, 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chantraine, Yves, Joanette, Yves & Ska, Bernadette. 1998. Conversational abilities in patients with right hemisphere damage. In Paradis, Michel (ed.), Pragmatics in neurogenic communication disorders. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 21–32.Google Scholar
Cherchi, Lucien. 1985. On the role of ellipsis in discourse coherence. In Meyer-Hermann, Reinhard & Rieser, Hannes (eds.), Ellipsen und fragmentarische Ausdrücke. Band 2. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 224–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, Colin E. 1953. Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 25, 975–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 2007. Discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11 (2), 155–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chipere, Ngoni. 2009. Individual differences in processing complex grammatical structures. In Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David & Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1966. Cartesian Linguistics: a Chapter in the history of rationalist thought. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Christianson, Kiel & Ferreira, Fernanda. 2005. Conceptual accessibility and sentence production in a free word order language (Odawa). Cognition 98, 105–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 2002. Speaking in time. Speech Communication 36, 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert & Fox Tree, Jean. 2002. Using ‘uh’ and ‘um’ in spontaneous speaking. Cognition 84, 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert & Wasow, Thomas. 1998. Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology 37, 201–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clayman, Steven E. 2012. Address terms in the organization of turns at talk: The case of pivotal turn extensions. Journal of Pragmatics 44 (13), 1853–1867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Code, Chris. 1982. Neurolinguistic analysis of recurrent utterance in aphasia. Cortex 18, 141–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Code, Chris. 1987. Language, aphasia, and the right hemisphere. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Code, Chris. 1991. Speech automatisms and recurring utterances. In Code, Chris (ed.), The characteristics of aphasia. London: Taylor & Francis, 155–177.Google Scholar
Code, Chris. 1994. Modelling aphasic speech automatisms and recurring utterances: Contributions to sonority theory. Journal of Neurolinguistics 8, 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Code, Chris, 1996. Speech from the isolated right hemisphere? Left hemispherectomy cases E.G. and N.F. In Code, Chris, Wallesch, Claus-W., Joanette, Yves, Lecours, André Roch (eds.), Classic cases in neuropsychology. Vol. 1. Hove: Psychology Press, 319–336.Google Scholar
Code, Chris. 1997. Can the right hemisphere speak? Brain and Language 57, 38–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Code, Chris. 2005. First in, last out? The evolution of aphasic lexical speech automatisms to agrammatism and the evolution of human communication. Interaction Studies 6, 311–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, Florian. 1981. Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Thompson, Sandra A.. 2000. Concessive patterns in conversation. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast. Cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 381–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Thompson, Sandra A. 2005. A linguistic practice for retracting overstatements: ‘Concessive Repair’. In Hakulinen, Auli & Selting, Margret (eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 257–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Ono, Tsuyoshi. 2007. Increments in cross-linguistic perspective: Introductory remarks. Special issue of Pragmatics 17 (4), 505–512.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Selting, Margret. 1996. Towards an interactional perspective on prosody and a prosodic perspective on interaction. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Selting, Margret (eds.), Prosody in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 11–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, Nelson. 2001. The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24, 87–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change. An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuc, Alexandru, Ozuru, Yasuhiro, Manier, David & Hirst, William. 2006. On the formation of collective memories: the role of a dominant narrator. Memory & Cognition 34 (4), 752–762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuenca, Maria Josep. 2013. The fuzzy boundaries between discourse marking and modal marking. In Degand, Liesbeth, Pietrandrea, Paola & Cornillie, Bert (eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutica, Ilaria, Bucciarelli, Monica & Bara, Bruno G.. 2006. Neuropragmatics: Extralinguistic pragmatic ability is better preserved in left-hemisphere-damaged patients than in right hemisphere-damaged patients. Brain and Language 98 (1), 12–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dąbrowska, Eva. 1997. The LAD goes to school: a cautionary tale for nativists. Linguistics 35, 736–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara & Sweetser, Eve. 1997. ‘Then’ in conditional constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 8 (2), 109–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danon-Boileau, Laurent, Meunier, Annie, Morel, Mary-Annick & Tournandre, Nicolas. 1991. Intégration discursive et intégration syntaxique. Langages 104, 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, Lindley & Maull, Nancy. 1977. Interfield theories. Philosophy of Science 44, 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Defour, Tine & 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), 643–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Fagard, Benjamin. 2011. ‘Alors’ between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language 18 (1), 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, Cornillie, Bert & Pietrandrea, Paola (eds.). 2013. Discourse markers and modal particles. Categorization and description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole. 2007. The relation between syntactic and prosodic parenthesis. In Dehé, Nicole & Kavalova, Yordanka (eds.), Parentheticals. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole. 2009. Clausal parentheticals, intonational phrasing, and prosodic theory. Journal of Linguistics 45 (3), 569–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole. 2014. Parentheticals in spoken English: The syntax-prosody relation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole. 2016. The prosodic phrasing of parenthetical comment clauses in spontaneous spoken language: Evidence from Icelandic ‘held ég’. Studia Linguistica, online early view. Available at: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-9582 (last access June 28, 2017).Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole & Braun, Bettina. 2013. The prosody of question tags in English. English Language & Linguistics 17 (1), 129–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole & Kavalova, Yordanka. 2006. The syntax, pragmatics and prosody of parenthetical ‘what’. English Language and Linguistics 10 (2), 289–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole & Wichmann, Anne. 2010a. The multifunctionality of epistemic parentheticals in discourse: prosodic cues to the semantic-pragmatic boundary. Functions of Language 17 (1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole & Wichmann, Anne. 2010b. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole, Feldhausen, Ingo & Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.). 2011. New insights into the prosody–syntax interface: focus, phrasing, language evolution; Special issue of Lingua 121 (13), 1863–2034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2012. Über Sätze in Gesprächsbeiträgen – wann sie beginnen und wann man sie braucht. In Cortès, Colette (ed.), Satzeröffnung. Formen, Funktionen, Strategien. In collaboration with Behr, Irmtraud, Dalmas, Martine, Larrory- Wunder, Anne, Marschall, Gottfried & Sauerwein, Sibylle. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 1–14.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2013. Turn-design at turn-beginnings: Multimodal resources to deal with tasks of turn-construction in German. Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1), 91–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf & Günthner, Susanne (eds.) 2015. Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Smedt, Koenraad. 1990. IPF: An incremental parallel formulator. In Dale, Robert, Mellish, Chris & Zock, Michael (eds.), Current research in natural language generation. London: Academic Press, 167–192.Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich & Waltereit, Richard. 2014. ‘Moi je ne sais pas vs. Je ne sais pas moi’: French disjoint pronouns in the left vs. right periphery. In Beeching, Kate & Detges, Ulrich (eds.), Discourse functions at the right and left periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Leiden: Brill, 24–46.Google Scholar
Devinsky, Orrin. 2000. Right cerebral hemisphere dominance for a sense of corporeal and emotional self. Epilepsy and Behavior 1 (1), 60–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2006. Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Fischer, Kerstin (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 403–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2011. Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49 (2), 365–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2013. ‘Same same but different’ – Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In Degand, Liesbeth, Cornillie, Bert & Pietrandrea, Paola (eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles. Categorization and description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dines, Elizabeth R., 1980. Variation in discourse – ‘and stuff like that’. Language in Society 9 (1), 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dipper, Lucy, Bryan, Karen & Tyson, J.. 1997. Bridging inference and relevance theory: an account of right-hemisphere inference. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 11(3), 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. & Giora, Rachel. 2014. From cognitive-functional linguistics to dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25 (3), 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duden-Grammatik, . 2009. Die Grammatik. Published by the Dudenredaktion. Mannheim, Wien, Zürich: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Edwards, Susan & Knott, Raymond. 1994. Assessing spontaneous language abilities of aphasic speakers. In Graddol, David & Swann, Joan (eds.), Evaluating language. Clevedon, OH: Multilingual Matters, 91–101.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter. 2006. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Vol. 2: Der Satz. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick. 2015. Implicit AND explicit language learning: their dynamic interface and complexity. In Rebuschat, Patrick (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3–23.Google Scholar
Enkvist, Nils Erik & Wårvik, Brita. 1987. Old English þa, temporal chains, and narrative structure. In Ramat, Anna Giacalone, Carruba, Onofrio & Bernini, Giuliano (eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 221–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders & Kintsch, Walter. 1995. Long-term working memory. Psychological Review 102 (2), 211–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erman, Britt. 1995. Grammaticalization in progress: The case of ‘or something’. In Moen, Inger, Simonsen, Hanne G. & Lødrup, Helge (eds.), Papers from the fifteenth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Oslo 13–15 January 1995. Oslo: Department of Linguistics, University of Oslo, 136–147.Google Scholar
Erman, Britt & Warren, Beatrice. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20, 29–62.Google Scholar
Fabbro, Franco. 1999. The neurolinguistics of bilingualism: An introduction. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Vest, Jocelyne M. M. 2015. Detachments for cohesion. Berlin: De Gryuter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S. 1996. Is it better to give than to donate? Syntactic flexibility in language production. Journal of Memory & Language 35, 724–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S. & Dell, Gary S.. 2000. Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 40, 296–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, Fernanda. 2005. Psycholinguistics, formal grammars, and cognitive science. The Linguistic Review 22, 365–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Fernandes & Bailey, Karl G. D.. 2004. Disfluencies and human language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8, 231–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon. 2004. Euclidean distance between syntactically linked words. Physical Review E 70 (1), 056135.Google ScholarPubMed
Fiebach, Christian J., Friederici, Angela, Müller, Karsten & von Cramon, D. Yves. 2002. fMRI evidence for dual routes to the mental lexicon in visual word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neurosciences 14 (1), 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiebach, Christian J., Schlesewsky, Matthias, Lohmann, Gabriele, von Cramon, D. Yves & Friederici, Angela. 2005. Revisiting the role of Broca’s area in sentence processing: syntactic integration versus syntactic working memory. Human Brain Mapping 24, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, Kerstin. 2000. From cognitive semantics to lexical pragmatics: The functional polysemy of discourse particles. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin (ed.). 2006. Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Marilyn & Holmes, Virginia A.. 1978. Planning units and syntax in sentence production. Cognition 6, 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia & Thompson, Sandra. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 134–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. & Thompson, Sandra A.. 2007. Relative clauses in English conversation. Relativizers, frequency, and the notion of construction. Studies in Language 31 (2), 293–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox Tree, Jean & Meijer, Paul J. A.. 1999. Building syntactic structure in speaking. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28, 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, Dorothea. 1985. Sentences in conversational turns: A case of syntactic ‘double blind’. In Dascal, Marcelo (ed.), Dialogue. An interdisciplinary approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6 (2), 167–190.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31 (7), 931–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friederici, Angela. 2002. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6, 78–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friederici, Angela. 2004. The neural basis of syntactic processes. In Gazzaniga, Michael S. (ed.), The cognitive neurosciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 789–801.Google Scholar
Friederici, Angela. 2012. The cortical language circuit: From auditory perception to sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16, 262–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friederici, Angela & Alter, Kai. 2004. Lateralization of auditory language functions: A dynamic dual pathway model. Brain and Language 89 (2), 267–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friederici, Angela, Rüschemeyer, Shirley-Ann, Hahne, Anja & Fiebach, Christian J.. 2003. The role of left inferior frontal and superior temporal cortex in sentence comprehension: localizing syntactic and semantic processes. Cerebral Cortex 13, 170–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friederici, Angela, Bahlmann, Jörg, Heim, Stefan, Schubotz, Ricarda & Anwander, Alfred. 2006. The brain differentiates human and non-human grammars: Functional localization and structural connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 (7), 2458–2463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, Rod. 2005. Conversation Analysis. In Davies, Alan & Elder, Catherine (eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 262–284.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliff, NY: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Garrett, M.F. 1980. Levels of processing in sentence production. In Butterworth, Brian (ed.), Language production, Vol. 1. London: Academic Press, 177–220.Google Scholar
Geluykens, Ronald. 1992. From discourse process to grammatical construction. On left-dislocation in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68, 1–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, Edward. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Miyashita, Yasushi, Marantz, Alec & O’Neill, Wayne (eds.), Image, Language, Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 95–126.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward & Perlmutter, Neal J.. 1998. Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2, 262–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony. 1993. New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative sociologies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gildea, Daniel & Temperley, David. 2010. Do grammars minimize dependency length? Cognitive Sciences 34 (2), 286–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction ritual: essays in face to face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1978. Response cries. Language 54 (4), 787–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Radio talk. In Goffman, Erving (ed.), Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 197–327.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldinger, Stephen D. 1998. Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical acces. Psychological Review 105, 251–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, Frieda. 1968. Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldman-Rakic, Patricia S. 1996. The prefrontal landscape: implications of functional architecture for understanding human mentation and the central executive. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 351, 1445–1453.Google ScholarPubMed
Goodglass, Harold. 1993. Understanding Aphasia. New York: Academic Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Goodwin, Charles. 1979. The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In Psathas, George (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, 97–121.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1980. Restarts, pauses and the achievement of mutual gaze at turn beginning. Sociological Inquiry 50, 272–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Barry. 1997. Neuropsychology and advances in memory function. Current Opinion in Neurology 10, 306–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grice, Herbert P. 1969. Utterer’s meaning and intentions. Philosophical Review 78, 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, Richard, Friedman, Ori, Ween, Jon, Winner, Ellen, Happé, Francesca & Brownell, Hiram. 2006. Theory of mind and the right cerebral hemisphere: refining the scope of impairment. Laterality 11, 195–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grimaldi, Mirko. 2012. Toward a neural theory of language: Old issues and new perspectives. Journal of Neurolinguistics 25, 304–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grodzinsky, Yosef & Friederici, Angela D.. 2006. Neuroimaging of syntax and syntactic processing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 16, 240–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Günthner, Susanne. 1999. Entwickelt sich der Konzessivmarker obwohl zum Diskursmarker? Grammatikalisierungstendenzen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Linguistische Berichte 180, 409–446.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 2008. ‘Die Sache ist … ’: eine Projektorkonstruktion im gesprochenen Deutsch. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27 (1), 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 2011. Between emergence and sedimentation: Projecting constructions in German interaction. In Auer, Peter & Pfänder, Stefan (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 156–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegemann, Liliane. 1991. Parenthetical adverbials: the radical orphanage approach. In Chiba, Shuki, Ogawa, Akira, Fuiwara, Yasuaki, Yamada, Norio, Koma, Osamu & Yagi, Takao (eds.), Aspects of modern English linguistics: Papers presented to Masatomo Ukaji on his 60th Birthday. Tokio: Kaitakusha, 232–254.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1994. Ritualization and the development of language. In Pagliuca, William (ed.), Perspective on grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, John. 2006. Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science 30 (4), 643–672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halliday, M.A.K. 1989. Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. Revised by Matthiesen, Christian M.I.M.. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hancil, Sylvie. 2015. The grammaticalization of final but: From conjunction to final particle. In Hancil, Sylvie, Haselow, Alexander & Post, Margje (eds.). Final particles. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancil, Sylvie, Haselow, Alexander & Post, Margje (eds.). 2015. Final particles. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Happé, Francesca, Brownell, Hiram & Winner, Ellen. 1999. Acquired “theory of mind” impairments following stroke. Cognition 70, 211–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, Roy. 2012. Integrationist notes and papers 2012. Gamingley: Bright Pen.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2011. Discourse marker and modal particle: The functions of utterance- final then in spoken English: Journal of Pragmatics 43 (14), 3603–3623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haselow, Alexander 2012a. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language & Communication 32 (3), 182–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2012b. Discourse organization and the rise of final then in the history of English. In Hegedüs, Irén & Fodor, Alexandra (eds.), English historical linguistics 2010: Selected papers from the sixteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL-16), Pécs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 153–175.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2014. Sequentiality in dialogue as a trigger for grammaticalization. In Hancil, Sylvie & König, Ekkehard (eds.), Grammaticalization – Theory and data. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 203–233.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2015a. Left vs. right periphery in grammaticalization: The case of anyway. In Smith, Andrew, Trousdale, Graeme & Waltereit, Richard (eds.), New directions in grammaticalization research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 157–186.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2015b. Final particles in spoken German. In Hancil, Sylvie, Haselow, Alexander & Post, Margje (eds.), Final particles. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 77–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2016a. Intensifying adverbs ‘outside the clause’. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien & Lohmann, Arne (eds.), Outside the clause – Form and function of extra-clausal constituents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 379–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2016b. A processual view on grammar: Macrogrammar and the final field in spoken syntax. Language Sciences 54, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Stefan, Alter, Kai, Ischebeck, Anja K., Amunts, Katrin, Eickhoff, Simon B., Mohlberg, Hartmut, Zilles, Karl, von Cramon, D. Yves & Friderici, Angela. 2005. The role of the left Brodman’s areas 44 and 45 in reading words and pseudowords. Cognitive Brain Research 25 (3), 982–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2012. On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51 (6), 1205–1247.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, Kuteva, Tania & Long, Haiping. 2013. An outline of Discourse Grammar. In Bischoff, Shannon & Jeny, Carmen (eds.), Reflections on functionalism in linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 175–233.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kuteva, Tania, Kaltenböck, Gunther & Long, Haiping. 2015. On some correlations between grammar and brain lateralization. Oxford Handbooks Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (www.oxfordhandbooks.com)Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2013. Turn-initial position and some of its occupants. Journal of Pragmatics 57, 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John & Atkinson, J. Maxwell. 1984. Introduction. In Heritage, John & Atkinson, J. Maxwell (eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–15.Google Scholar
Hickok, Gregory & Poeppel, David. 2004. Dorsal and ventral streams: a framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language. Cognition 92 (1–2), 67–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hickok, Greogory & Poeppel, David. 2007. The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 8 (5), 393–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Walther, Himmelmann, Nikolaus & Wiemer, Björn (eds), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiranuma, So. 1999. Syntactic difficulty in English and Japanese: A textual study. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11, 309–322.Google Scholar
Hird, Kathryn & Kirsner, Kim. 2003. The effect of right cerebral hemisphere damage on collaborative planning in conversation: An analysis of intentional structure. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 17 (4–5), 309–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hockett, Charles F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203, 89–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Höhle, Tilman N. 1986. Der Begriff ‘Mittelfeld’. Anmerkungen über die Theorie der topologischen Felder. In Weiss, Walter E., Wiegand, Herbert E. & Reis, Marga (eds.), Textlinguistik contra Stilistik. Akten des V. Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses Göttingen, Bd. 3. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 329–340.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1983. The functions of tag questions. English Language Research Journal 3, 40–65.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1988. Of course: A pragmatic particle in New Zealand woman’s and men’s speech. Australian Journal of Linguistics 2, 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul. J. 1987. Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13, 139–157.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1998. Emergent Grammar. In Tomasello, Michael (ed.), The new psychology of language. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, 155–175.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 2001. Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: prototype or family resemblance? In Pütz, Martin, Niemeier, Susanne & Dirven, René (eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition. Berlin: De Gruyter, 109–129.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. J. 2004. The openness of grammatical constructions. Chicago Linguistic Society 40, 239–256.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., 2011. Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In Auer, Peter & Pfänder, Stefan (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 22–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 2015. Temporality and the emergence of a construction: a discourse approach to sluicing. In Deppermann, Arnulf & Günthner, Susanne (eds.), Temporality in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 123–146.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A.. 2008. Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Laury, Ritva (ed.), Cross-Linguistic studies of clause combining. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 99–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hough, Monica S. 1990. Narrative comprehension in adults with right and left hemisphere brain damage: Theme organization. Brain and Language 38, 253–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. Language description: The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICE-GB = International Corpus of English – Great Britain, Realease 2, 2006. Survey of English Usage, University College London, London (CD Rom).Google Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang. 2015. Temporality and syntactic structure – Utterance-final intensifiers in spoken German. In Deppermann, Arnulf & Günthner, Susanne (eds.), Temporality in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 147–171.Google Scholar
Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita & Izutsu, Katsunobu. 2014. Final hanging but in American English. Where a formal coordinator meets a functional subordinator. In Hancil, Sylvie & König, Ekkehard (eds.), Grammaticalization – Theory and data. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 257–285.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1995. The boundaries of the lexicon. In Everaert, Martin, van der Linden, Erik-Jan, Schenk, André & Schreuder, Rob (eds.), Idioms. Structural and psychological perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 133–169.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1980. The framework of language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1973. A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: overlapped, tag positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica 9 (1), 47–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. In D’Urso, Valtentina & Leonardi, Paolo (eds.), Discourse analysis and natural rhetoric. Padua: Cleup Editore, 11–38.Google Scholar
Jiang, Jingyang & Liu, Haitao. 2015. The effects of sentence length on dependency distance, dependency direction and the implications – Based on a parallel English Chinese dependency treebank. Language Sciences 50, 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Rhawn. 1990. Neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology and behavioral neurology. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1993. The discourse marker ‘well’: a relevance theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19 (5), 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Smith, Sara W.. 1998. And people just you know like ‘wow’ – Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In Jucker, Andreas H. & Ziv, Yael (eds.), Discourse markers. Theory and descriptions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Ziv, Yael (eds). 1998. Discourse markers. Theory and descriptions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, Marcel A. & Carpenter, Patricia A.. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review 99 (1), 122–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2008. ‘Prosody and function of English comment clauses.’ Folia Linguistica 42 (1), 83–134.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2013. Development of comment clauses. In Aarts, Bas, Close, Joanne, Leech, Geoffrey & Wallis, Sean (eds.), The English verb phrase: investigating recent change with corpora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 286–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2016. On the grammatical status of insubordinate if-clauses. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien & Lohmann, Arne (eds.), Outside the clause – Form and function of extra-clausal constituents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 341–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35, 852–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien & Lohmann, Arne. 2016. Extra-clausal constituents. An overview. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien & Lohmann, Arne (eds.). Outside the clause – Form and function of extra-clausal constituents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamide, Yuki, Altmann, Gerry T. & Haywood, Sarah L.. 2003. The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 49 (1), 133–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 2007a. Constraints on multiple initial embedding of clauses. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12 (1), 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 2007b. Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses. Journal of Linguistics 43 (2), 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Min-Joo & Jahnke, Nathan. 2011. The meaning of utterance-final even. Journal of English Linguistics 39, 36–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kind, Walther. 1994. Satzbegriff und gesprochene Sprache. Lingua 94, 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kjellmer, Göran. 2003. Hesitation. English Studies 84 (2), 170–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koelsch, Stefan, Schulze, Katrin, Sammler, Daniela, Fritz, Thomas, Müller, Karsten & Gruber, Oliver. 2009. Functional architecture of verbal and tonal working memory: an fMRI study. Human Brain Mapping 30 (3), 859–873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 Amerikanistik 23, 145–197.Google Scholar
Lamandella, John T. 1977. The limbic system in human communication. In Whitaker, Haiganoosh & Whitaker, Harry A. (eds.), Studies in neurolinguistics. Vol. 3. London: Academic Press, 157–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 2001. Dislocation. In Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf & Raible, Wolfgang (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook. Vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1050–1078.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Namhee, Mikesell, Lisa, Joaquin, Anna Dina L., Mates, Andrea W. & Schuman, John H.. 2009. The interactional instinct. The evolution and acquisition of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lehman Blake, Margaret. 2006. Clinical relevance of discourse characteristics after right hemisphere brain damage. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 15 (3), 255–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehman Blake, Margaret. 2010. Communication deficits associated with right hemisphere brain damage. In Damico, Jack S., Muller, Nicole, and Ball, Martin J. (eds.), The handbook of language and speech disorders. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 556–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenk, Uta. 1998. Marking discourse coherence: Functions of discourse markers in spoken English. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and rhetoric. Adverbial connectors in the history of English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene. 1996. On the ‘semi-permeable’ character of grammatical units in conversation. Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 238–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene. 2004. Collaborative turn sequences. In Lerner, Gene (ed.), Conversation analysis. Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 225–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, Alan M. 1987. Pretense and representation: The origins of “theory of mind”. Psychological Review 94 (4), 412–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, William J. M. 1999. Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In Brown, Colin M. & Hagoort, Peter (eds.), The neurocognition of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 83–122.Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana. 2002. Rhetorical motivations for the emergence of discourse particles, with special reference to English of course. In van der Wouden, Ton, Foolen, Ad & van de Craen, Piet (eds.), Particles. Special issue of Belgian Journal of Linguistics 16, 79–91.Google Scholar
Levy, Roger. 2011. Probabilistic linguistic expectations, uncertain input, and implications for eye movements in reading. Studies of Psychology and Behavior 9 (1), 53–64.Google Scholar
Lindström, Anna. 2009. Projecting nonalignment in conversation. In Sidnell, Jack (ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per. 1998. Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per. 2005. The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Linell, Per. 2009. Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Linell, Per. 2014. Interactivities, intersubjectivities and language. On dialogism and phenomenology. Language & Dialogue 4 (2), 165–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Haitao. 2008. Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. Journal of Cognitive Sciences 9 (2), 159–191.Google Scholar
Local, John & Kelly, John. 1986. Projection and ‘silences’: Notes on phonetic and conversational structure. Human Studies 9, 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luck, Steven J. & Vogel, Edward K.. 1997. The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature 390, 279–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackenzie, Catherine & Brady, Marian. 2008. Communication difficulties following right hemisphere stroke: applying evidence to clinical management. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention 2 (4), 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maclay, Howard & Osgood, Charles E.. 1959. Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word 15, 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandler, George. 1975. Memory storage and retrieval: some limits on the reach of attention and consciousness. In Rabbit, Patrick M.A. & Dornic, Stanislav (eds.), Attention and performance V. New York: Academic Press, 150–162.Google Scholar
Mandler, George. 1985. Cognitive psychology: An essay in cognitive science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Marini, Andrea. 2012. Characteristics of narrative discourse processing after damage to the right hemisphere. Seminars in Speech and Language 33 (1), 68–78.Google Scholar
Marini, Andrea, Carlomagno, Sergio, Caltagirone, Carlo & Nocentini, Ugo. 2005. The role played by the RH in the organization of complex textual structures. Brain and Language 93, 46–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Robert C. 2000. Speech fluency and aphasia. In Riggenbach, Heidi (ed.), Perspectives on fluency. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 74–88.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William & Tyler, Lorraine Komisarjevsky. 1980. The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition 8, 1–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, Randi C. & Freedman, Monica. 2001. Short-term retention of lexical-semantic representations: implications for speech production. Memory 9 (4–6), 261–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mashal, Nira, Borodkin, Katy, Maliniak, Omer & Faust, Miriam. 2015. Hemispheric involvement in native and non-native comprehension of conventional metaphors. Journal of Neurolinguistics 35, 96–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian & Thompson, Sandra A.. 1988. The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’. In Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 275–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Michael & Carter, Ronald. 2001. Ten criteria for a spoken grammar. In Hinkel, Eli & Fotos, Sandra (eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 51–75.Google Scholar
McDermott, Kathleen B., Petersen, Steven E., Watson, Jason M. & Ojemann, Jeffrey G.. 2003. A procedure for identifying regions preferentially activated by attention to semantic and phonological relations using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neuropsychologia 41 (3), 293–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, Skye. 1999. Exploring the process of inference generation in sarcasm: a review of normal and clinical studies. Brain and Language 68 (3), 486–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2005. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (6), 661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, George A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63 (2), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, Jim & Weinert, Regina. 2009 [1998]. Spontaneous spoken language. Syntax and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Rachel L. C. & Crow, Tim J.. 2005. Right hemisphere language functions and schizophrenia: The forgotten hemisphere? Brain 128 (5), 963–978.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mondada, Lorenza. 1995. La construction interactionelle du topic. In Mondada, Lorenza (ed.), Actes du colloque Formes linguistiques er dynamiques interactionelles. Cahiers de l’ILSL 7, Université de Lausanne, 111–136.Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2009. Emergent focused interactions in public spaces: a systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics 41 (10), 1977–1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, Rosamund E. 1998. Fixed expressions and text: A study of the distribution and textual behavior of fixed expressions in English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Morel, Mary-Annick. 2007. Le postrhème dans le dialogue oral en français. L’information grammaticale 113, 40–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulder, Jean & Thompson, Sandra A.. 2008. The grammaticization of ‘but’ as a final particle in English conversation. In Laury, Ritva (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 179–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, Felipe & Hirst, William. 2010. Resistance to the influences of others: limits to the formation of a collective memory through conversational remembering. Applied Cognitive Psychology 24 (5), 608–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musso, Mariacristina, Moro, Andrea, Glauche, Volkmar, Rijntjes, Michel, Reichenbach, Jürgen, Büchel, Christian & Weiler, Cornelius. 2003. Broca’s area and the language instinct. Nature Neuroscience 6 (7), 774–781.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, Penelope S. 1994. Communication disorders associated with right-hemisphere brain damage. In Chapey, Roberta (ed.), Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders (third edition). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 514–534.Google Scholar
Myers, Penelope S. 1999. Right hemisphere damage: Disorders of communication and cognition. San Diego, CA: Singular.Google Scholar
Myers, Penelope S. & Lehman Blake, Margaret. 2008. Communication disorders associated with right hemisphere damage. In Chapey, Roberta (Ed.), Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders (fifth edition). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 963–987.Google Scholar
Nairne, James S. 1990. A feature model of immediate memory. Memory & Cognition 18 (3), 251–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neath, Ian. 2000. Modeling the effects of irrelevant speech on memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 7 (3), 403–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nefdt, Ryan M. 2016. Linguistic modelling and the scientific enterprise. Language Sciences 54, 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neininger, Bettina & Pulvermüller, Friedemann. 2003. Word-category specific deficits after lesions in the right hemisphere. Neuropsychologia 41 (1), 53–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, Gerald, Wallis, Sean & Aarts, Bas. 2002. Exploring natural language. Working with the British component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2015. Parentheticals and the grammar of complementation. In Schneider, Stefan, Glikman, Julie & Mathieu Avanzi, M. (eds.), Parenthetical verbs. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 13–38.Google Scholar
Norén, Niklas. 2013. Pivot constructions as methods for perspective shift during turns at talk. Journal of Pragmatics 54 (1), 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic modality, language and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberauer, Klaus & Kliegl, Reinhold. 2006. A formal model of capacity limits in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 55 (4), 601–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okada, Rieko, Okuda, Takeshi, Nakano, Naoki, Nishimatsu, Kazuhiko, Fukushima, Hiroyuki et al. 2013. Brain areas associated with sentence processing: A functional MRI study and a lesion study. Journal of Neurolinguistics 26, 470–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouden, Dirk Bart den, Fix, Stephen, Parrish, Todd B. & Thompson, Cynthia K.. 2009. Argument structure effects in action verb naming in static and dynamic conditions. Journal of Neurolinguistics 22, 196–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann. 1999. Whales, candlelight, and stuff like that. General extenders in English discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oviatt, Sharon. 1995. Predicting spoken disfluencies during human–computer interaction. Computer Speech and Language 9, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paltridge, Brian. 2006. Discourse analysis. An introduction. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Parola, Alberto, Gabbatore, Ilaria, Bosco, Francesca M., Bara, Bruno G., Cossa, Frederico M., Gindri, Patrizia & Sacco, Katiuscia. 2016. Assessment of pragmatic impairment in right hemisphere damage. Journal of Neurolinguistics 39 (1), 10–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2011. Emergent grammar for all practical purposes: The on-line formatting of left and right dislocations in French conversation. In Auer, Peter & Pfänder, Stefan (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 45–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 2003. Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 37–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pichler, Heike. 2013. The structure of discourse-pragmatic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pichler, Heike & Levey, Stephen. 2011. In search of grammaticalization in synchronic dialect data: General extenders in Northeast England. English Language & Linguistics 15 (3), 441–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. & Garrod, Simon. 2007. Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (3), 105–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pierrehumbert, Janet & Hirschberg, Julia. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours and the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, Philip R., Morgan, Jerry & Pollack, Martha E. (eds.), Intentions in communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 271–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomeranz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Maxwell Atkison, J. & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–101.Google Scholar
Prat, Chantel S., Long, Debra L. & Baynes, Kathleen. 2007. The representation of discourse in the two hemispheres: An individual differences investigation. Brain and Language 100 (3), 283–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purdy, Mary H. 2002. Script knowledge following stroke. Journal of Medical Speech Language Pathology 10 (3), 173–181.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ramscar, Michael & Port, Robert F.. 2016. How spoken languages work in the absence of an inventory of discrete units. Language Sciences 53, 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinaldi, Maria C., Marangolo, Paola, Baldassarri, Francesca. 2004. Metaphor comprehension in right brain-damaged patients with visuo-verbal and verbal material: A dissociation (re)considered. Cortex 40, 479–490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogalsky, Corianne, Matchin, William & Hickok, Gregory. 2008. Broca’s area, sentence comprehension, and working memory: an fMRI study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9. (http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.014.2008)Google Scholar
Sabbagh, Mark A. 1999. Communicative intentions and language: evidence from right hemisphere damage and autism. Brain and Language 70 (1), 29–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sacks, Harvey. 1984. Notes on methodology. In Atkinson, John & Heritage, J. Maxwell (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 21–27.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation. Volume I. ed. by Jefferson, Gail, with Introductions by Schegloff, Emanuel A.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1995. Lectures on conversation. Volume II. ed. by Jefferson, Gail & Schegloff, Emanuel A.. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Jefferson, Gail. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saffran, Jenny R., Aslin, Richard N. & Newport, Elissa L.. 1996. Statistical learning by 8- month- old infants. Science 274, 1926–1928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saffran, Jenny R., Johnson, Elizabeth K., Aslin, Richard N. & Newport, Elissa L.. 1999. Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants and adults. Cognition 70 (1), 27–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sakai, Katsuyuki, Kitaguchi, Katsuya & Hikosaka, Okihide. 2003. Chunking during human visuomotor sequence learning. Experimental Brain Research 152, 229–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santi, Andrea & Grodzinsky, Yosef. 2010. fMRI adaptation dissociates syntactic complexity dimensions. NeuroImage 51, 1285–1293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scarborough, Don L. 1972. Memory for brief visual displays. Cognitive Psychology 3 (3), 408–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1987. Recycled turn-beginnings: a precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organization. In Button, Graham & Lee, John R.E. (eds.), Talk and social organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1988. Presequences and indirection: Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 12, 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 52–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997. Practices and actions: boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23, 499–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Sacks, Harvey. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica VIII (4), 289–327.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Ulrike. 2014. Frequency, hesitations and chunks. A usage-based study of chunking in English. Freiburg: NIHIN Studies. http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/9793/Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 1985. Common discourse particles in English conversation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Schriefers, Herbert, Teruel, E. & Meinshousen, R. M.. 1998. Producing simple sentences: Results from picture-word interference experiments. Journal of Memory and Language 39, 609–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas A. 1972. Perspectives in zoosemiotics. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret. 1996. On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the constitution of turn constructional units and turn in conversation. Pragmatics 6 (3), 357–388.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret. 1997. Sogenannte ‘Ellipsen’ als interaktiv relevante Konstruktionen? Ein neuer Versuch über die Reichweite und Grenzen des Ellipsenbegriffs für die Analyse gesprochener Sprache in der konversationellen Interaktion. In Schlobinsky, Peter (ed.), Syntax des gesprochenen Deutsch. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 117–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret. 2000. The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society 29, 477–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret. 2001. Fragments of units as deviant cases of unit-production in conversational talk. In Selting, Margret & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amstderdam: John Benjamins, 229–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherratt, Sue. 2007. Right brain damage and the verbal expression of emotion: a preliminary investigation. Aphasiology 21 (3/4), 320–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherrat, Sue & Penn, Claire. 1990. Discourse in a right-hemisphere brain-damaged subject. Aphasiology 4 (6), 539–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherratt, Sue & Bryan, Karen. 2012. Discourse production after right brain damage: Gaining a comprehensive picture using a multi-level processing model. Journal of Neurolinguistics 25 (4), 213–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shields, Jane. 1991. Semantic-pragmatic disorder: A right hemisphere syndrome? British Journal of Disorders of Communication 26 (3), 383–392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shriberg, Elizabeth. 1996. Disfluencies in Switchboard. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing 96. Philadelphia: Addendum, 11–14.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation analysis. An introduction. Malden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell.Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & Aijmer, Karin. 2002. The expectation marker ‘of course’. Languages in Contrast 4, 13–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John & Mauranen, Anna. 2006. Linear unit grammar. Integrating speech and writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, Wolf. 2009. Distributed processing and temporal codes in neuronal networks. Cognitive Neurodynamics 3 (3), 189–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, Aaron. 1966. Speech and other functions after left (dominant) hemispherectomy. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 29, 467–471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snijders, Tineke M., Vosse, Theo, Kempen, Gerard, van Berkum, Jos A., Petersson, Karl Magnus & Hagoort, Peter. 2009. Retrieval and unification of syntactic structure in sentence comprehension: an fMRI study using word category ambiguity. Cerebral Cortex 19 (7), 1493–1503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Speedie, Lynn J., Wertmann, Eliahu, Ta’ir, Judy & Heilman, Kenneth M.. 1993. Disruption of automatic speech following a right basal ganglia lesion. Neurology 43, 1768–1774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
St. George, Marie, Kutas, Marta, Martinez, Antigona & Sereno, Martin I.. 1999. Semantic integration in reading: Engagement of the RH during discourse processing. Brain 122, 1317–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stabler, Edward. 2011. Meta-meta-linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 37 (1/2), 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5–6), 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemmer, Brigitte, Giroux, Francine & Joanette, Yves. 1994. Production and evaluation of requests by right hemisphere brain-damaged individuals. Brain and Language 47 (1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stemmer, Brigitte & Joanette, Yves. 1998. The interpretation of narrative discourse of brain damaged individuals within the framework of a multilevel discourse model. In Beeman, Mark & Chiarello, Christine (eds.), Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 329–348.Google Scholar
Stenström, Ana-Brita & Jørgensen, Annette Myre. 2008. La función fática de los apelativos en la conversación juvenil de Madrid y Londres. Actas del III Congreso EDICE, Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, 1–14.Google Scholar
Stokhof, Martin & van Lambalgen, Michiel. 2011. Abstractions and idealizations: The construction of modern linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 37 (1/2), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, Michael. 1997. Practical English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali & Denis, Derek. 2010. The stuff of change: General extenders in Toronto, Canada. Journal of English Linguistics 38 (4), 335–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taglicht, Josef. 2001. Actually, there’s more than meets the eye. English Language and Linguistics 5 (1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ten Have, Paul. 1990. Methodological issues in conversation analysis. Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique 27, 23–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenpenny, Patricia L. 1995. Abstractionist versus episodic theories of repetition priming and word identification. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 3, 339–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tettamani, Marco, Rotondi, Irene, Perani, Daniela, Scotti, Giuseppe, Fazio, Ferruccio, Cappa, Stefano F. & Moro, Andrea. 2009. Syntax without language: neurobiological evidence for cross-domain syntactic computations. Cortex 45 (7), 825–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Cynthia K., Bonakdarpour, Borna, Fix, Stephen F., Blumenfeld, Henrike K., Parrish, Todd B., Gitelmann, Darren R. & Mesulam, Marsel. 2007. Neural correlates of verb argument structure processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19 (11), 1753–1767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26, 125–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Mulac, Anthony J.. 1991. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer ‘that’ in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15, 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Suzuki, Ryoko. 2011. The grammaticalization of final particles. In Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 668–682.Google Scholar
Tompkins, Connie A. 1995. Right hemisphere communication disorders: Theory and management. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing.Google Scholar
Tompkins, Connie A. 2008. Theoretical considerations for understanding “Understanding” by adults with right hemisphere brain damage. Perspectives on Neurophysiology and Neurogenetic Speech and Language Disorders 18 (2), 45–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tompkins, Connie A. 2012. Rehabilitation for cognitive communication disorders in right hemisphere brain damage. Archive of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 93 (1), S61–S69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tompkins, Connie A., Fassbinder, Wiltrud, Lehman-Blake, Margaret T. & Baumgaertner, Annette. 2002. The nature and implications of right hemisphere language disorders: Issues in search of answers. In Hillis, Argye E. (ed.), The handbook of adult language disorders: Integrating cognitive neuropsychology, neurology, and rehabilitation. New York: Psychology Press, 429–448.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel & Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2006. Tag questions in British and American English. Journal of English Linguistics 34 (4), 283–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel & Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2009. Tag questions in English – The first century. Journal of English Linguistics 37, 130–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the ICHL XII, Manchester 1995. <http://www.stanford.edu/~traugott/papers/discourse.pdf> (16.07.2016)+(16.07.2016)>Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. Grammaticalization. In Luraghi, Silvia & Bubenik, Vit (eds), Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics. London: Continuum, 269–283.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2012. Intersubjectification and clause periphery. In Intersections of Intersubjectivity, Brems, Liselotte, Ghesquière, Lobke & Van de Velde, Freek (eds.), Special issue of English Text Construction 5 (1), 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2015. Investigating “periphery” from a functionalist perspective. Linguistics Vanguard 1 (online journal). doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2014-1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2016. On the rise of types of clause-final pragmatic markers in English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17 (1), 26–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Trousdale, Graeme. 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. How do they intersect? In Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallar, Giuseppe & Baddeley, Alan. 1987. Phonological short-term store and sentence processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology 4 (4), 417–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Berkum, Jos A., Brown, Colin M., Zwitserlood, Pienie, Kooijman, Valesca & Hagoort, Peter. 2005. Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31 (3), 443–467.Google ScholarPubMed
Van Lancker, Diana. 1990. The neurology of proverbs. Behavioral Neurology 3, 169–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Lancker, Diana. 1993. Nonpropositional speech in aphasia. In Blanken, Gerhard, Dittmann, Jürgen, Grimm, Hannelore, Marshall, John C. & Wallesch, Claus-W. (eds.), Linguistic disorders and pathologies. An international handbook. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 215–224.Google Scholar
Van Lancker, Diana. 1997. Rags to riches: Our increasing appreciation of cognitive and communicative abilities of the human right cerebral hemisphere. Brain and Language 57 (1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana. 2001. Preserved formulaic expressions in a case of transcortical sensory aphasia compared to incidence in normal everyday speech. Brain and Language 79 (1), 38–41.Google Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana. 2004. When novel sentences spoken or heard for the first time in the history of the universe are not enough: Toward a dual-process model of language. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 39, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 & Wheatley, Kathleen M. (eds.), Formulaic language. Volume 2: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 445–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana. 2012. Formulaic language and language disorders. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32, 62–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker, Diana & Cummings, Jeffrey L.. 1999. Expletives: Neurolinguistic and neurobehavioral perspectives on swearing. Brain Research Review 31, 83–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana & Postman, Whitney A.. 2006. Formulaic expressions in spontaneous speech of left- and right-hemisphere-damaged subjects. Aphasiology 20 (5), 411–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana, Pachana, Nancy, Cummings, Jeffrey L. & Sidtis, John J.. 2006. Dysprosodic speech following basal ganglia insult: Toward a conceptual framework for the study of cerebral representation of prosody. Brain and Language 97 (2), 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Videsott, Gerda, Herrnberger, Bärbel, Hoenig, Klaus, Schilly, Edgar, Grothe, Jo, Wiater, Werner, Spitzer, Manfred & Kiefer, Markus. 2010. Speaking in multiple languages: Neural correlates of language proficiency in multilingual word production. Brain & Language 113, 103–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vigneau, Mathieu, Beaucousin, Virginie, Hervé, Pierre Y., Jobard, Gael, Petit, Laurent, Crivello, Fabrice, Mellet, Emmanuel, Zago, Laure, Mazoyer, Bernard & Tzourio-Mazoyer, Nathalie. 2011. What is right-hemiphere contribution to phonological, lexico-semantic, and sentence processing? Insights from meta-analysis. Neuroimage 54 (1), 577–593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, Gareth. 2007. On the design and use of pivots in everyday English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (12), 2217–2243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wårvik, Brita. 1995. The ambiguous adverbial/conjunction þa and þonne in Middle English: A discouse-pragmatic study of then and when in early English Saints’ Lives. In Jucker, Andreas (ed.), Historical pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegener, Heide. 2000. Da, denn, weil – der Kampf der Konjunktionen. Zur Grammatikalisierung im kausalen Bereich. In Thieroff, Rolf (ed.), Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie und Praxis. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinert, Regina. 2012. Complement clauses in spoken German and English: Syntax, deixis, and discourse-pragmatics. Folia Linguistica 46 (1), 233–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiß, Sabine. 1997. EEG-Kohärenz und Sprachverarbeitung. Die funktionelle Verkopplung von Gehirnregionen während der Verarbeitung unterschiedlicher Nomina. In Rickheit, Gert (ed.), Studien zur klinischen Linguistik. Modelle, Methoden, Interventionen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 125–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, Tim. 2003. Interjections, language, and the ‘showing/saying’ continuum. Pragmatics & Cognition 11 (1), 39–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, Harry A. 1976. A case of isolation of the speech functions. In Whitaker, Haiganoosh & Whitaker, Harry A. (eds.), Studies in neurolinguistics. Vol. 2. London: Academic Press, 1–58.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1992. The semantics of interjection. Journal of Pragmatics 18, 159–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, David P. 1992. Interjections as deictics. Journal of Pragmatics 18, 119–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Peter. 2000. Mind the gap. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison & Perkins, Michael. 2000. The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language & Communication 20 (1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Paul, Stamatakis, Emmanuel A. & Tyler, Lorraine K.. 2012. Differentiating hemipheric contributions to syntax and semantics in patients with left-hemisphere lesions. Journal of Neuroscience 32 (24), 8149–8157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zangwill, Oliver. 1967. Speech and the minor hemisphere. Acta Neurologica et Psychiatrica Belgica 67, 1013–1020.Google ScholarPubMed
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger & Strecker, Bruno. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Vol. 1–3. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.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.

  • References
  • Alexander Haselow, Universität Rostock, Germany
  • Book: Spontaneous Spoken English
  • Online publication: 09 November 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108265089.008
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.

  • References
  • Alexander Haselow, Universität Rostock, Germany
  • Book: Spontaneous Spoken English
  • Online publication: 09 November 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108265089.008
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.

  • References
  • Alexander Haselow, Universität Rostock, Germany
  • Book: Spontaneous Spoken English
  • Online publication: 09 November 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108265089.008
Available formats
×