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-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T18:47:49.136Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2009

Laurel J. Brinton
Laurel J. Brinton
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia, Vancouver
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 Comment Clause in English
Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development
 , pp. 257 - 274
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

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

Benson, Larry D.3 1987. The Riverside Chaucer. 3rd edn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Evans, G. Blakemore. 2 1997. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd edn. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Krapp, George Philip and Dobbie, Elliot van Kirk. 1931–1952. The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records: A Collective Edition. 6 vols. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1883. King Alfred's Orosius. Part I. Old English Text and Latin Original. London: N. Trübner & Co.Google Scholar
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 4 2000. 4th edn. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Bosworth, Joseph and Toller, T. Northcote. 1898. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burchfield, R. W., ed. 3 1996. The New Fowler's Modern English Usage. 3rd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Canadian Oxford Dictionary. 2 2004. Ed. by Barber, Katherine. 2nd edn. Toronto, Oxford, and New York: Oxford University Press.
Dictionary of American Regional English, Vol. III. 1996. Ed. by Cassidy, Frederic G. and Hall, Joan Houston. Cambridge, MA and London: Belknap Press for Harvard University Press.
Encarta World English Dictionary. 1999. Ed. by Soukhanov, Anne H.et al. New York: St. Martin's Press.
The English Dialect Dictionary. 1904. Ed. by Wright, Joseph. London: Henry Frowde for the English Dialect Society and New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
Evans, Bergen and Evans, Cornelia. 1957 A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Fowler, H. W.2 1965. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. 2nd edn. revised by Sir Ernest Gowers. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. T. 1984. Elementary Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster online. www.merriam-webster.com/
NTC's American Idioms Dictionary2 1996. Ed. by Spears, Richard A.. 2nd edn. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Oxford English Dictionary. 2 1989. 2nd edn. Prepared by Simpson, J. A. and Weiner, E. S. C.. Oxford: Clarendon.
Oizumi, Akio, ed. 1991–1992. A Complete Concordance to the Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Alpha-Omega, Reihe C, Englische Autoren. Kunihiro Miki prog. 10 vols. Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Alexander. 1971 [1902]. Shakespeare Lexicon and Quotation Dictionary. 3rd edn. revised and enlarged by Sarrazin, Gregor. [Reprint: New York: Dover.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spevack, Martin. 1969. A Complete and Systematic Concordance to the Works of Shakespeare. 9 vols. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert, ed. 2 2000. The American Heritage Dictionary of the Indo-European Roots. 2nd edn. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Webster's Dictionary of English Usage. 1989. Ed. by Gilman, E. Ward. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
British National Corpuswww.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/ Searched using VIEW (Variation in English Words and Phrases) developed by Davies, Mark, Brigham Young University. http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/
Canadian Newsstand. 2006. Micromedia Proquest. www.proquest.com/products_pq/descriptions/canadian_newsstand.shtml
Dictionary of Old English Corpus in Electronic Form. 2004. Ed. by Healey, Antonette di Paulo. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada/National Endowment for the Humanities. http://ets.umdl.umich.edu/o/oec/
Early English Books Online. Chadwyck-Healey Ltd. http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home
Early English Prose Fiction. Ed. by Klein, Holgeret al. Chadwyck-Healey Ltd. http://collections.chadwyck.com/home/home_eepf.jsp
Eighteenth-Century Fiction. Ed. Hawley, Judithet al. Chadwyck-Healey Ltd. http://collections.chadwyck.com/home/home_c18f.jsp
English Drama. Ed. by Barnard, Johnet al. Chadwyck-Healey Ltd. http://collections.chadwyck.com/home/home_ed.jsp
ICAME (International Computer Archives of Modern and Medieval English) Collection of English Language Corpora. 1999. Compiled by Hofland, Knut, Lindebjerg, Anne, and Thunestvedt, Jørn. 2nd edn. CD-ROM. Bergen: Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities. (See http://khnt.hit.uib.no/icame/manuals/)Google Scholar
The Australian Corpus of English
The Freiburg-LOB Corpus of British English
The Freiburg-Brown Corpus of American English
The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts, Diachronic Part
The Lampeter Corpus of Early Modern English Tracts
The Wellington Corpus of Written New Zealand English
Middle English Dictionary. Electronic version available at the Middle English Compendium http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mec/
Oxford English Dictionary. 32000–. 3rd edn. online (in progress). Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dictionary.oed.com/.
Strathy Corpus of Canadian English. Strathy Unit, Queen's University. http://post.queensu.ca/strathy/topics/about_the_unit.html
University of Toronto English Library. 1998. www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/
University of Virginia Electronic Text Center, Modern English Collection http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/modeng/modeng0.browse.html
The Works of the Bard. http://www.cs.usyd.edu.au/∼matty/Shakespeare/
Benson, Larry D.3 1987. The Riverside Chaucer. 3rd edn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Evans, G. Blakemore. 2 1997. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd edn. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Krapp, George Philip and Dobbie, Elliot van Kirk. 1931–1952. The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records: A Collective Edition. 6 vols. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1883. King Alfred's Orosius. Part I. Old English Text and Latin Original. London: N. Trübner & Co.Google Scholar
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 4 2000. 4th edn. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Bosworth, Joseph and Toller, T. Northcote. 1898. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burchfield, R. W., ed. 3 1996. The New Fowler's Modern English Usage. 3rd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Canadian Oxford Dictionary. 2 2004. Ed. by Barber, Katherine. 2nd edn. Toronto, Oxford, and New York: Oxford University Press.
Dictionary of American Regional English, Vol. III. 1996. Ed. by Cassidy, Frederic G. and Hall, Joan Houston. Cambridge, MA and London: Belknap Press for Harvard University Press.
Encarta World English Dictionary. 1999. Ed. by Soukhanov, Anne H.et al. New York: St. Martin's Press.
The English Dialect Dictionary. 1904. Ed. by Wright, Joseph. London: Henry Frowde for the English Dialect Society and New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
Evans, Bergen and Evans, Cornelia. 1957 A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Fowler, H. W.2 1965. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. 2nd edn. revised by Sir Ernest Gowers. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. T. 1984. Elementary Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster online. www.merriam-webster.com/
NTC's American Idioms Dictionary2 1996. Ed. by Spears, Richard A.. 2nd edn. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Oxford English Dictionary. 2 1989. 2nd edn. Prepared by Simpson, J. A. and Weiner, E. S. C.. Oxford: Clarendon.
Oizumi, Akio, ed. 1991–1992. A Complete Concordance to the Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Alpha-Omega, Reihe C, Englische Autoren. Kunihiro Miki prog. 10 vols. Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Alexander. 1971 [1902]. Shakespeare Lexicon and Quotation Dictionary. 3rd edn. revised and enlarged by Sarrazin, Gregor. [Reprint: New York: Dover.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spevack, Martin. 1969. A Complete and Systematic Concordance to the Works of Shakespeare. 9 vols. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert, ed. 2 2000. The American Heritage Dictionary of the Indo-European Roots. 2nd edn. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Webster's Dictionary of English Usage. 1989. Ed. by Gilman, E. Ward. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
British National Corpuswww.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/ Searched using VIEW (Variation in English Words and Phrases) developed by Davies, Mark, Brigham Young University. http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/
Canadian Newsstand. 2006. Micromedia Proquest. www.proquest.com/products_pq/descriptions/canadian_newsstand.shtml
Dictionary of Old English Corpus in Electronic Form. 2004. Ed. by Healey, Antonette di Paulo. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada/National Endowment for the Humanities. http://ets.umdl.umich.edu/o/oec/
Early English Books Online. Chadwyck-Healey Ltd. http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home
Early English Prose Fiction. Ed. by Klein, Holgeret al. Chadwyck-Healey Ltd. http://collections.chadwyck.com/home/home_eepf.jsp
Eighteenth-Century Fiction. Ed. Hawley, Judithet al. Chadwyck-Healey Ltd. http://collections.chadwyck.com/home/home_c18f.jsp
English Drama. Ed. by Barnard, Johnet al. Chadwyck-Healey Ltd. http://collections.chadwyck.com/home/home_ed.jsp
ICAME (International Computer Archives of Modern and Medieval English) Collection of English Language Corpora. 1999. Compiled by Hofland, Knut, Lindebjerg, Anne, and Thunestvedt, Jørn. 2nd edn. CD-ROM. Bergen: Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities. (See http://khnt.hit.uib.no/icame/manuals/)Google Scholar
The Australian Corpus of English
The Freiburg-LOB Corpus of British English
The Freiburg-Brown Corpus of American English
The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts, Diachronic Part
The Lampeter Corpus of Early Modern English Tracts
The Wellington Corpus of Written New Zealand English
Middle English Dictionary. Electronic version available at the Middle English Compendium http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mec/
Oxford English Dictionary. 32000–. 3rd edn. online (in progress). Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dictionary.oed.com/.
Strathy Corpus of Canadian English. Strathy Unit, Queen's University. http://post.queensu.ca/strathy/topics/about_the_unit.html
University of Toronto English Library. 1998. www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/
University of Virginia Electronic Text Center, Modern English Collection http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/modeng/modeng0.browse.html
The Works of the Bard. http://www.cs.usyd.edu.au/∼matty/Shakespeare/
Aarts, Bas and Meyer, Charles F, eds. 1995. The Verb in Contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aarts, Jan and Aarts, Flor. 1995. Find and want: A corpus-based case study in verb complementation. In Aarts and Meyer, 159–182.
Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. (Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 10.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin 1998. Epistemic predicates in contrast. In Johansson, Stig and Oksefjell, Signe, eds., Corpora and Cross-Linguistic Research: Theory, Method and Case Studies, 277–295. (Language and Computers, Studies in Practical Linguistics, 24.) Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin 1997. I think – an English modal particle. In Swan, Toril and Westvik, Olaf Jansen, eds.,Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, 1–47. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 99.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin 1996. Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. (Studies in Language & Linguistics.) London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin 1988. “Now may we have a word on this”: The use of now as a discourse particle. In Kytö, Merja, Ihalainen, Ossi, and Rissanen, Matti, eds., Corpus Linguistics, Hard and Soft: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, 15–34. (Language and Computers, 2.) Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin and Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, eds. 2006. Pragmatic Markers in Contrast. (Studies in Pragmatics, 2.) Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Akimoto, Minoji. 2007. On rivalry in the history of English. Paper presented at the IAUPE Conference, Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
Akimoto, Minoji 2002. On the grammaticalization of the parenthetical “I'm afraid.” In Fisiak, Jacek, ed., Studies in English Historical Linguistics and Philology: A Festschrift for Akio Oizumi, 1–9. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Akimoto, Minoji 2000. The grammaticalization of the verb ‘pray.’ In , Fischer, Rosenbach, , and , Stein, eds., 67–84.
Akimoto, Minoji 1998. Some principles of idiomatization. In Fisiak, Jacek and Oizumi, Akio, eds., English Historical Linguistics and Philology in Japan, 143–154. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 109.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Algeo, John. 2006. British or American English? A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns. (Studies in English Language.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. On doing as you please. In Jucker, , ed., 275–309.
American Dialect Society Discussion List (ADS-L). www.americandialect.org/adslarchive.shtml.
Andersen, Gisle. 2000. The role of the pragmatic marker like in utterance interpretation. In Andersen, Gisle and Fretheim, Thorstein, eds., Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude, 17–38. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 79.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Gisle 1998. The pragmatic marker like from a Relevance-theoretic perspective. In Jucker, and Ziv, , eds., 147–169.
Andersen, Gisle 1997. They like wanna see like how we talk and all that. The use of like as a discourse marker in London teenage speech. In Ljung, Magnus, ed., Corpus-based Studies in English: Papers from the Seventeenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, 37–48. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics, 20.) Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Anderson, Lloyd B. 1986. Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries. In Chafe, and Nichols, , eds., 273–312.
Anttila, Raimo. 1989 [1972]. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 6.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas. 2000. Truth conditional discourse semantics for parentheticals. Journal of Semantics 17:31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baghdikian, Sonia. 1977. To say and to tell in Present-day British English. Studia Neophilologica 49:3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banfield, Ann. 1982. Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction. Boston, London, Melbourne, and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word Formation. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla. 2006. Discourse markers in Italian: Towards a “compositional” meaning. In Fischer, , ed., 449–464.
Bazzanella, Carla 2003. Discourse markers and politeness in Old Italian. In Held, Gudrun, ed., Partikeln und Höflichkeit, 247–268. Wien: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1971 [1958]. Subjectivity in language. In Meek, Mary Elizabeth, trans., Problems in General Linguistics, 223–230. (Miami Linguistics Series, 8.) Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press. (Originally published in Journal de psychologie 55 [1958]:267ff.)Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander and Diewald, Gabriele, eds. Forthcoming. Constructions and Language Change. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRef
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, and Finegan, Edward, eds. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Educational.Google Scholar
Blake, Norman F. 2002. On Shakespeare's informal language. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 3:179–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Norman 1992. Why and what in Shakespeare. In Takamiya, Toshiyuki and Beadle, Richard, eds., Chaucer to Shakespeare: Essays in Honour of Shinsuke Ando, 179–193. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2006. Divisions of labour: The analysis of parentheticals. Lingua 116:1670–1687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2005. And-parentheticals. Journal of Pragmatics 37:1165–1181.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1996. Are apposition markers discourse markers? Journal of Linguistics 32:325–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1990/1991. Performatives and parentheticals. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 91:197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1988. So as a constraint on relevance. In Kempson, Ruth M., ed., Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality, 183–195. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blyth, Carl, Recktenwald, Sigrid, and Wang, Jenny. 1990. I'm like “say what?!”: A new quotative in American oral narrative. American Speech 65:215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1989. Intonation and its Uses: Melody in Grammar and Discourse. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Borgmeier, Raimund, Grabes, Herbert, and Jucker, Andreas H., eds. 1998. Anglistentag 1997 Giessen: Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2002. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization reconsidered: On the late use of temporal adverbs. In Fanego, Teresa, López-Couso, María José, and Pérez-Guerra, Javier, eds., English Historical Syntax and Morphology, 67–97. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 223.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2001. Historical discourse analysis. In Schiffrin, Deborah, Tannen, Deborah, and Hamilton, Heidi E., eds., The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 138–160. Maldon, MA and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1999. ‘Whilom, as olde stories tellen us’: The discourse marker whilom in Middle English. In Canitz, A. E. Christa and Wieland, Gernot R., eds., From Arabye to Engelond: Medieval Studies in Honour of Mahmoud Manzalaoui on his 75th Birthday, 175–199. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1998. “The flowers are lovely; only, they have no scent”: The evolution of a pragmatic marker. In , Borgmeier, Grabes, , and Jucker, , eds., 9–33.
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. (Topics in English Linguistics, 19.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization in Language Change. (Research Surveys in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C.. 1987 [1978]. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics, 4.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger and Albert, Gilman. 1989. Politeness theory and Shakespeare's four major tragedies. Language in Society 18:159–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N.2 2006. Parentheticals. In Brown, Keithet al., eds., Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 179–182. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busse, Ulrich. 2002. Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus: Morpho-Syntactic Variability of Second Person Pronouns. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 106.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bussmann, Hadumod. 1996. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Trans, . and ed. Trauth, Gregory and Kazzazi, Kerstin. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butters, Ronald R. 1982. Editor's note. American Speech 57:149.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere, and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle, ed. 2001. Grammaticalization: A critical assessment. Language Sciences 23.2–3.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1988. Linking intonation units in spoken English. In Haiman, John and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, 1–27. (Typological Studies in Language, 18.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Chafe and Nichols, eds., 261–263.
Chafe, Wallace and Nichols, Johanna, eds. 1986. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Encoding of Epistemology. (Advances in Discourse Processes, 20). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chen, Guohua. 1998. The degrammaticalization of addressee-satisfaction conditionals in Early Modern English. In Fisiak, Jacek and Krygier, Marcin, eds., Advances in English Historical Linguistics, 23–32. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 12.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1998. Gossip revisited: Language in all-female groups. In Cheshire, Jenny and Trudgill, Peter, eds., The Sociolinguistics Reader. Vol. 2: Gender and Discourse, 127–152. London: Arnold. [Reprinted from Jennifer Coates and Deborah Cameron, eds., Women in their Speech Communities: New Perspectives on Language and Sex. New York and London: Longman, 1988.]Google Scholar
Cohen, Gerald Leonard. 2005. “talking American” program; slang as a valuable part of language. Online posting 6 January 2005. ADS-L. 7 January 2007; www.americandialect.org/.
Collins, Peter and David, Lee, eds. 1998.The Clause in English: In Honour of Rodney Huddleston. (Studies in Language Companion Series, 45.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Corum, Claudia. 1975. A pragmatic analysis of parenthetic adjuncts. In Grossman, Robin E., San, L. James, and Vance, Timothy J, eds., Papers from the Eleventh Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 133–141. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 5 2003. A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics. 5th edn. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 1988. Another look at well, you know…English Today 13:47–49.Google Scholar
Crystal, David and Derek, Davy. 1975. Advanced Conversational English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan and Merja, Kytö. 1999. Modifying pragmatic force: Hedges in a corpus of Early Modern English dialogues. In Jucker, Andreas H., Fritz, Gerd, and Lebsanft, Franz, eds. Historical Dialogue Analysis, 293–312. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 66.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curme, George O. 1935. Parts of Speech. Vol. I of A Grammar of the English Language. Boston: D.C. Heath. [Reprint: Essex, CT: Verbatim, 1977.]Google Scholar
Curme, George O. 1931. Syntax. Vol. II of A Grammar of the English Language. Boston: D.C. Heath. [Reprint: Essex, CT: Verbatim, 1977.]Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. Forthcoming. Review of Wierzbicka, English: Meaning and Culture. Journal of English Linguistics.
Dehé, Nicole and Kavalova, Yordanka, eds. 2007. Parentheticals. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 106.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole and Yordanka, Kavalova. 2006. The syntax, pragmatics, and prosody of parenthetical what. English Language and Linguistics 10:289–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. 2005. The grammaticalisations of sort of, kind of, and type of in English. Paper presented at New Reflections on Grammaticalization 3, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. Handout available at www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/subjects/lel/staff/david-denison/papers/
Smet, Hendrik and Hubert, Cuyckens. 2007. Diachronic aspects of complementation: Constructions, entrenchment and the matching problem. In Cains, Christopher M. and Russom, Geoffrey, eds., Studies in the History of the English Language III: Managing Chaos, Strategies for Identifying Change in English, 187–213. (Topics in English Linguistics, 53.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diani, Giuliana. 2004. The discourse function of I don't know in English conversation. In Karin, Aijmer and Anna-Brita, Stenström, eds., Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora, 151–171. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 120.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger and Michael, Tomasello. 2001. The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 12:97–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2006. Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Fischer, , ed., 403–425.
Edmondson, Willis. 1981. Spoken Discourse: A Model for Analysis. (Longman Linguistic Library, 27.) London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Enkvist, Nils Erik and Brita, Wårvik. 1987. Old English þa, temporal chains, and narrative structure. In Anna, Giacalone Ramat, Carruba, Onofrio, and Giuliano, Bernini, eds., Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 221–237. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 48.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt. 2001. Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics 33:1337–1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt. 1987. Pragmatic Expressions in English: A Study of you know, you see, and I mean in Face-to-Face Conversation. (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Stockholm Studies in English, 69.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Erman, Britt. 1986. Some pragmatic expressions in English conversation. In Gunnel, Tottie and Ingegerd, Bäcklund, eds., English in Speech and Writing: A Symposium, 131–147. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Erman, Britt and Ulla-Britt, Kotsinas. 1993. Pragmaticalization: the case of ba’ and you know. Studies i modern språkvetenskap, 76–93. (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Stockholm Studies in Modern Philology, New Series 10.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. Teresa. 1991. The representation of disjunct constituents. Language 67:726–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faerch, Claus and Kasper, Gabriele. 1982. Phatic, metalingual and metacommunicative functions in discourse: Gambits and repairs. In Enkvist, Nils, ed., Impromptu Speech: A Symposium, 71–103. Åbo: Åbo Akademi.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Kathleen and Barbara, Bell. 1995. Sociolinguistic variation and the case of be + like. American Speech 70: 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finegan, Edward and Douglas, Biber. 1995. That and zero complementisers in Late Modern English: Exploring ARCHER from 1650–1990. In Aarts, and Meyer, , eds., 241–257.
Finell, Anne. 1989. Well now and then. Journal of Pragmatics 13:653–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Andreas. 1998. Marry: From religious invocation to discourse marker. In Borgmeier, , Grabes, , and Jucker, , eds., 35–46.
Fischer, Kerstin, ed. 2006. Approaches to Discourse Particles. (Studies in Pragmatics, 1.) Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fischer, Olga. 2007a. The development of English parentheticals: A case of grammaticalization? In Smit, Uteet al., eds., Tracing English through Time: Explorations in Language Variation. A Festschrift for Herbert Schendl on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, 103–118. (Austrian Studies in English, 95.) Vienna: Braumüller.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2007b. Subjectification, scope and word order. Ch. 6 of Morphosyntactic Change: Formal and Functional Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Anette, Rosenbach, and Dieter, Stein, eds. 2000. Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English. (Studies in Language Companion Series, 53.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRef
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2004. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the historical construction of interlocutor stance: From stance markers to discourse markers. Discourse Studies 6/4:427–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fludernik, Monika. 2000. Narrative discourse markers in Malory'sMorte D'Arthur. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1:231–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fludernik, Monika. 1995. Middle English þo and other narrative discourse markers. In Jucker, , ed., 359–392.
Fox Tree, Jean E. and Josef, C. Schrock. 2002. Basic meaning of you know and I mean. Journal of Pragmatics 34:727–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank-Job, Barbara. 2006. A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In Fischer, , ed., 359–374.
Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are discourse markers?Journal of Pragmatics 31:931–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6.2:167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1988. Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38:19–33.Google Scholar
Frey, Patrick. 2006. If you will…Online posting. 24 January 2006. Patterico's Pontifications. 8 January 2007; http://patterico.com/Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam and Jan-Ola, Östman. 2004. Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Mirjam, Fried and Östman, Jan-Ola, eds., Construction Grammar in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 11–86. (Constructional Approaches to Language, 2.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerhardt, Julie and Charles, Stinson. 1994. The nature of therapeutic discourse: Accounts of self. Journal of Narrative and Life History 4:151–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GiacoloneRamat, Anna Ramat, Anna and Paul, J. Hopper, eds. 1998. The Limits of Grammaticalization. (Typological Studies in Language, 37.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Julia Anna. 1980. Discourse particles: An analysis of the role of y'know, I mean, well, and actually in conversation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
González-Álvarez, María Dolores. 1996. Epistemic disjuncts in Early Modern English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 1:219–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goossens, Louis. 1985. Framing the linguistic action scene in Old and Present-day English: OE cweðan, secgan, sprecan and Present-day English speak, talk, say and tell compared. In Jacek, Fisiak, ed., Papers from the 6th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 149–170. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 34.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goossens, Louis. 1982. Say: Focus on message. In Renè, Dirven, Louis, Goossens, Yvans, Putseys, and Emma, Vorlat, eds., The Scene of Linguistic Action and its Perspectivization by speak, talk, say and tell, 85–131. (Pragmatics & Beyond, 3:6.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Implicature. In Peter, Cole and Jerry, L. Morgan, eds., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3: Speech Acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1979. Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structures and their determination by different semantic functions. In Allerton, D. J., Carney, Edward, and Holdcroft, David, eds. Function and Context in Linguistic Analysis: A Festschrift for William Haas, 57–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Ruqaiya, Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. (English Language Series, 9.) London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hand, Michael. 1993. Parataxis and parentheticals. Linguistics and Philosophy 16:495–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2006. A dynamic polysemy approach to the lexical semantics of discourse markers (with an exemplary analysis of French toujours). In Fischer, , ed., 21–41.
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2005. From prepositional phrase to hesitation marker: The semantic and pragmatic evolution of French enfin. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6:37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 1998. The Function of Discourse Particles: A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 53.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible?Linguistics 37:1043–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalization. In Joseph, and Janda, , eds., 575–601.
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike, and Friederike, Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., and Wiemer, Björn, eds., What makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components, 21–42. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 158.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2005. Grammaticalization and English Complex Prepositions. (Routledge Advances in Corpus Linguistics, 7.) London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2004. Using the Oxford English dictionary (3rd edn online) quotations database as a corpus – a linguistic appraisal. ICAME Journal 28:17–30.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian and Miriam, Locher. 2004. Discourse markers and grammaticalization theory: The case of in terms of. Paper presented at the 25th International Conference of the International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English (ICAME), Verona, Italy, May 2004.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. 1975. On assertive predicates. In John, B. Kimball, ed., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 4, 91–124. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1994. Phonogenesis. In William, Pagliuca, ed., Perspectives on Grammaticalization, 29–45. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 109.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, and Heine, , eds., Vol. 1, 17–35.
Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth, Closs Traugott. 1 1993. 22003. Grammaticalization. 1st edn. 2nd edn. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
House, Juliane and Gabriele, Kasper. 1981. Politeness markers in English and German. In Florian, Coulmas, ed., Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, 157–185. The Hague, Paris, and New York: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hübler, Axel. 1983. Understatements and Hedges in English. (Pragmatics & Beyond, IV:6.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey, K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, Elly. 2001. Evidentials and Relevance. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 86.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyeiri, Yoko. 2002. God forbid! revisited: A historical analysis of the English verb forbid. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Glasgow, UK, August 2002.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. (Studies in Linguistics, 2.) Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobsson, Mattias. 2002. Thank you and thanks in Early Modern English. ICAME Journal 26:63–80.Google Scholar
James, Allan R. 1983. Compromisers in English: A cross-disciplinary approach to their interpersonal significance. Journal of Pragmatics 7:191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, Deborah. 1978. The use of oh, ah, say and well in relation to a number of grammatical phenomena. Papers in Linguistics 11:517–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, Deborah. 1973. Another look at, say, some grammatical constraints, on, oh, interjections and hesitations. In Claudia, Corumet al., eds., Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 242–251. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1961 [1927]. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part III. Syntax. Second Volume. London: George Allen & Unwin/Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1946. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part V. Syntax. Fourth Volume. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. and Richard, D. Janda, eds. 2003. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics.) Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. and Richard, D. Janda. 1988. The how and why of diachronic morphologization and demorphologization. In Michael, Hammond and Michael, Noonan, eds., Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, 193–210. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 2002. Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In Richard, Watts and Peter, Trudgill, eds., Alternative Histories of English, 210–230. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1997. The discourse marker well in the history of English. English Language and Linguistics 1:91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H., ed. 1995. Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 35.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Smith, Sara W.. 1998. And people just you know like ‘wow’: Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In Jucker, and Ziv, , eds., 171–201.CrossRef
Jucker, Andreas H., Sara, W. Smith, and Tanja, Lüdge. 2003. Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 35:1739–1769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Yael, Ziv, eds. 1998. Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 57.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2005. Charting the boundaries of syntax: A taxonomy of spoken parenthetical clauses. View[z]: Vienna Working Papers 14.1:21–53; www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/ang_new/online_papers/views.htmlGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2007. The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In Robert, Englebretson, ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, 183–219. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 164.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003. Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on I think. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 115.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1982. Wortbildung und Semantik. (Studienreihe Englisch, 14.) Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann-Bagel.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 1997. Construction Grammar. Words and the Grammar of Context, 123–131. (CSLI Lecture Notes, 40.) Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publication. (Originally printed in Verschueren, Jef, Östman, Jan-Ola, and Blommaert, Jan, eds., Handbook of Pragmatics, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1995.)Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 1983. Linguistic competence and folk theories of language: Two English hedges. In Amy, Dahlstrom, Claudia, Brugman, and Monica, Macaulay, eds., Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 128–137. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. (Reprinted in Kay 1997, 133–143.)Google Scholar
Keller, Eric. 1979. Gambits: Conversational strategy signals. Journal of Pragmatics 3:219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Eric and Sylvia, Taba Warner. 1979, 1976. Gambits: Conversational Tools. 1. Openers. 2. Links. Hull, P.Q.: Public Service Commission of Canada, Language Training Branch, English Program Development Unit.Google Scholar
Kim, Taejin. 1992. The Particle þa in the West-Saxon Gospels: A Discourse-Level Analysis. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Koivisto-Alanko, Päivi and Matti, Rissanen. 2002. We give you to wit: Semantics and grammaticalisation of the verb wit in the history of English. In Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, Nevala, Minna, Nurmi, Arja, and Rissanen, Matti, eds., Variation Past and Present: VARIENG Studies on English for Terttu Nevalainen, 13–32. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, 61.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Kroesch, Samuel. 1911. The semasiological development of words for ‘perceive’, etc. in the older Germanic dialects. Modern Philology 8:461–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 1998. Pragmatic particles in Early Modern English court trials. In Borgmeier, , Grabes, , and Jucker, , eds., 47–56.
Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 1997. From temporal adverbs to discourse particles: An instance of cross-linguistic grammaticalization? In Nevalainen, Terttu and Tarkka, Leena Kahlas, eds., To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, 319–328. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, 52.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1965. The evolution of grammatical categories. Diogenes 51:55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lalljee, Mansur and Mark, Cook. 1975. Anxiety and ritualized speech. British Journal of Psychology 66:299–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehmann, Christian. 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Wischer, and Diewald, , eds., 1–18.
Lehmann, Christian. 1995 [1982]. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. (LINCOM Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, 01.) Revised and expanded version. München and Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Lenk, Uta. 1998. Marking Discourse Coherence: Functions of Discourse Markers in Spoken English. (Language in Performance, 15.) Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2000. Soþlice and witodlice: Discourse markers in Old English. In Fischer, , Rosenbach, , and Stein, , eds., 229–249.CrossRef
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meaning: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. (Language, Speech, and Communication.) Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Diana M. 2006. Discourse markers in English: A discourse-pragmatic view. In Fischer, , ed., 43–59.
Lewis, Diana M. 2002. Rhetorical factors in lexical-semantic change: The case of at least. In Díaz Vera, Javier E., ed., A Changing World of Words, 525–538. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Mark. 2003. Like is, like not really like if you will. Online posting. 22 November 2003. Language Log. 5 January 2007; http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/∼myl/languagelog/Google ScholarPubMed
Lindström, Jan and Camilla, Wide. 2005. Tracing the origins of a set of discourse particles: Swedish particles of the type you know. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6:211–236.Google Scholar
Lindstöm, Therese Å. M. 2004. The history of the concept of grammaticalisation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Lipka, Leonhard. 3 2002. English Lexicology: Lexical Structure, Word Semantics & Word-Formation. 3rd revised edn. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José. 1996. On the history of methinks: From impersonal construction to fossilized expression. Folia Linguistica Historica 17:153–169.Google Scholar
Markkanen, Raija. 1985. English parenthetical clauses of the type ‘I believe/you know’ and their Finnish equivalents. Cross-Linguistics Studies in Pragmatics, 45–63. (Jyväskylä Cross-Language Studies, 11.) Jyväskylä: Dept. of English, University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Mathews, M. M. 1946. Notes on “American Speech,” April 1945. American Speech 21: 19–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1982. Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13:91–106.Google 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. 1958 [1912]. L’évolution des formes grammaticales. In Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. (Collection linguistique publiée par la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 8.) Paris: Campion.Google Scholar
Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2007. Adjunct, modifier, discourse marker: On the various functions of right in the history of English. Folia Linguistica Historica 27:141–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English Syntax. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molina, Clara. 2002. On the role of meaning in the historical development of discourse markers. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Glasgow, UK, August 2002.Google Scholar
Moore, Colette. 2006. The use of videlicet in Early Modern slander depositions: A case of genre-specific grammaticalization. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 7:245–263.Google Scholar
MorenoCabrera, Juan C Cabrera, Juan C. 1998. On the relationship between grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Giacolone Ramat and Hopper, eds., 211–227.
Neufeldt, Victoria. 1999. Re: lookit? Online posting. 16 April 1999. ADS-L; www.americandialect.org/
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1991. BUT, ONLY, JUST: Focusing Adverbial Change in Modern English 1500–1900. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, 51.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevanlinna, Saara. 1974. Background and history of as who say/saith in Old and Middle English literature. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 75:568–601.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. (Language, Speech, and Communication.) Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nuccorini, Stafania. 1990. From transparency to opaqueness: The case of fixed expressions. In Clotilde, Stasio, Maurizio, Gotti, and Rosanna, Bonadei, eds., La rappresentazione verbale e iconica: valori estetici e funzionali, 417–428. Milan: Angelo Guerini.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan, A. Sag, and Thomas, Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70:491–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jan, Nuyts. 2001. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 33:383–400.Google Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola. 1981. You know: A Discourse Functional View. (Pragmatics & Beyond, 2:7.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palacas, Arthur L. 1989. Parentheticals and personal voice. Written Communication 6:506–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palander-Collin, Minna. 1999. Grammaticalization and Social Embedding: I THINK and METHINKS in Middle and Early Modern English. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, 55.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew. 1986. Lexicalization. In Deborah, Tannen and James, E. Alatis, eds., Languages and Linguistics: The Interdependence of Theory, Data, and Application, 98–120. (GURT 1985.) Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Peltola, Niilo. 1982/1983. Comment clauses in Present-Day English. In Inna, Koskenniemi, Esko, Pennanen, and Hilkka, Aaltonen, eds., Studies in Classical and Modern Philology, 101–113. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Persson, Gunnar. 1993. Think in a panchronic perspective. Studia Neophilologica 65:3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Peter. 1998. On the boundaries of syntax: Non-syntagmatic relations. In Collins, and Lee, , eds., 229–250.
Potts, Christopher. 2002. The syntax and semantics of as-parentheticals. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20:623–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poutsma, H. 1926. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Part II: The Parts of Speech. Section II: The Verb and the Particles. Groningen: P. Noordhof.Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. 1917. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Part II: The Parts of Speech. Section I, B. Pronouns and Numerals. Groningen: P. Noordhof.Google Scholar
Prins, A. A. 1952. French Influence in English Phrasing. Leiden: Universitaire pers Leiden.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2003. It's like, so unfair. Online posting. 22 November 2003. Language Log. 5 January 2007; http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/∼myl/languagelog/.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney, Greenbaum, Geoffrey, Leech, and Jan, Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney, Greenbaum, Geoffrey, Leech, and Jan, Svartvik. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo. 2001. Degrammaticalization or transcategorization? In Schaner-Wolles, Chris, Rennison, John, and Newubarth, Friedrich, eds., Naturally! Linguistic Studies in Honour of Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler Presented on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, 393–401. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo. 1992. Thoughts on degrammaticalization. Linguistics 30:549–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redeker, Gisela. 1990. Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 14:367–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickford, John R., Thomas, A. Wasow, Norma, Mendoza-Denton, and Juli, Espinoza. 1995. Syntactic variation and change in progress: Loss of the verbal coda in topic-restricting as far as constructions. Language 71:102–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Syntax. In Roger, Lass, ed., The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. III: 1476–1776, 187–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1993. The loss of WIT ‘know’: Evidence from the Helsinki Corpus. In Risto, Hiltunenet al., eds., English Far and Wide: A Festschrift for Inna Koskenneimi. (Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, B:197.) Turku: Turun Yliopisto.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1991. On the history of that/zero as object clause links in English. In Karin, Aijmer and Bengt, Altenberg, eds., English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, 272–289. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian G. and Anna, Roussou. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 100.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne and Deborah, Lange. 1991. The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech 66:227–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RomeroTrillo, Jesús Trillo, Jesús. 1997. Your attention, please: Pragmatic mechanisms to obtain the addressee's attention in English and Spanish conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 28:205–221.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1973. Slifting. In Maurice, Gross, Morris, Halle, Marcel-Paul, Schützenberger, eds., The Formal Analysis of Natural Languages: Proceedings of the First International Conference, 133–169. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Rouchota, Villy. 1998. Procedural meaning and parenthetical discourse markers. In Jucker, and Ziv, , eds., 97–126.
Rudanko, Juhani. 1989. Complementation and Case Grammar: A Syntactic and Semantic Study of Selected Patterns of Complementation in Present-Day English. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Safire, William. 1999. On language. New York Times Sunday Magazine. June 13. Pg. 18.Google Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne. 2002. Points of View and Grammar: Structural Patterns of Subjectivity in American Conversation. (Studies in Discourse and Grammar, 11.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne. 2001. Local patterns of subjectivity in person and verb type in American English conversation. In Joan, Bybee and Paul, Hopper, eds., Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, 61–89. (Typological Studies in Language, 45.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne. 2000. I dunno: A usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don't in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 32:105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelfhout, Carla. 2000. Corpus-based analysis of parenthetical reporting clauses. In Frank, Eynde, Inede, Schuurman, and Ness, Schelkens, eds., Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands 1998: Selected papers from the Ninth CLIN Meeting, 147–159. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics, 29.) Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Schelfhout, Carla, Peter-Arno Coppen, and Nelleke, Oostdijk. 2004. Finite comment clauses in Dutch: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Linguistics 16:331–349.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1988. Semantic and pragmatic sources of the discourse marker then. Paper presented at the Georgetown University Roundtable in Linguistics (GURT).
Schiffrin, Deborah 1987. Discourse Markers. (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics, 5.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 2004. Lookit and the history of look-forms. In Taro, Kagyama and Hideki, Kishimoto, eds., Nihongo no Bunsiki to Gengo Ruikei: Shibatani Masayoshi Kyoju Kanredki-nen Robunshu (The Analysis of Japanese and Linguistic Typology: Festschrift for Professor Masayoshi Shibatani on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday), 543–558. Tokyo: Kuroshio Press.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 1999. Discourse markers. Lingua 107:227–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 1985. Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation. New York and London: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A. and Elizabeth, Closs Traugott. 2000. Invoking scalarity: The development of in fact. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1:7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Peter, Cole and Jerry, L. Morgan, eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3 Speech Acts, 59–82. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Marianne and Michael, Shapiro. 1993. Wimp English. American Speech 68:327–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shinzato, Rumiko. 2004. Some observations concerning mental verbs and speech act verbs. Journal of Pragmatics 36:861–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Muffy E. A. 2002. Like: The discourse particle and semantics. Journal of Semantics 19:35–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Beth. 2002. If you would for if you will. Online posting 17 February 2002. ADS-L. 7 January 2007; www.americandialect.org/.
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2000. The functions of I think in political discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10:41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita. 1998. From sentence to discourse: Cos because in teenage talk. In Jucker, and Ziv, , eds., 127–146.CrossRef
Stenström, Anna-Brita. 1995. Some remarks on comment clauses. In Aarts, and Meyer, , eds., 290–302.
Stenström, Anna-Brita. 1994. An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. (Learning About Language.) London and New York: Longman.
Swan, Michael. 1994. Language conundrums. ELT Journal: An International Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of other Languages 48:356–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, Toril. 1988. Sentence Adverbials in English: A Synchronic and Diachronic Investigation. (Tromsø-Studier i Språkvitenskap, 10.) Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 54.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabor, Whitney and Elizabeth, Closs Traugott. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In Giacalone, Ramat and Hopper, , eds., 229–272.
Tagliamonte, Sali and Alexandra, D'Arcy. 2007. The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective. English World-Wide 28:47–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali and Rachel, Hudson. 1999. Be like et al. beyond America: The quotative system in British and Canadian youth. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3:147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali and Jennifer, Smith. 2006. Layering, competition and a twist of fate: Deontic modality in dialects of English. Diachronica 23:341–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali and Jennifer, Smith. 2005. No momentary fancy! The zero ‘complementizer’ in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics 9:289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. “Object complements” and conversation. Studies in Language 26:125–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Anthony, Mulac. 1991a. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15:237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Anthony, Mulac. 1991b. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott, and Heine, , eds., Vol. 2, 313–329.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. Forthcoming. “All that he endeavoured to prove was …” On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogual contexts. In Ruth, Kempson and Robin, Cooper, eds., Language Change and Evolution.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2007a. Do constructions grammaticalize? Emergent constructions, grammaticalization, and motivation. Paper presented at a Workshop of Grammaticalization, Universidade Federal Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Brazil, June 2007.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2007b. Grammaticalization and Construction Grammar. Paper presented at a Workshop of Grammaticalization, Universidade Federal Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Brazil, June 2007.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and grammaticalization. In Cruse, D. Alan, Hundsnurscher, Franz, Job, Michael, and Lutzeier, Peter Rolf, eds., Lexikologie – Lexicology, 1702–1712. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003a. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Joseph, and Janda, , eds., 624–647.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003b. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Raymond, Hickey, ed., Motives for Language Change, 124–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2001. Legitimate counterexamples to unidirectionality in grammaticalization. Paper presented at Freiburg University. Available at www.stanford.edu/~traugott/ect-papersonline.html
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2000. Promise and pray-parentheticals. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, September 2000.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1997. The discourse connective after all: A historical pragmatic account. Paper presented at ICL, Paris, July.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995a (version of 11/97). The role of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester, UK, August 1995. Available at www.stanford.edu/~traugott/ect-papersonline.htmlGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995b. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Dieter, Stein and Susan, Wright, eds. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1994. Grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Asher, R. E. and Simpson, J. M. Y., eds., The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 1481–1486. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Winfred, P. Lehmann and Yakov, Malkiel, eds., Perspectives on Historical Linguistics, 245–271. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 24.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Richard, B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 96.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Bernd, Heine, eds. 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization. (Typological Studies in Language, 19.) 2 vols. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Ekkehard, König. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott, and Heine, , eds., Vol. 1, 189–218.
Trousdale, Graeme. Forthcoming. Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In Trousdale, Graeme and Gisborne, Nikolas, eds., Constructional Explanations in Modern English Grammar (Topics in English Linguistics.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tsui, Amy B. M. 1991. The pragmatic functions of I don't know. Text 11:607–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underhill, Robert. 1988. Like is, like, focus. American Speech 63:234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urmson, J. O. 1952. Parenthetical verbs. Mind 61:480–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogaert, Julie. 2006. I guess, I suppose and I believe as pragmatic markers: Grammaticalization and functions. BELL (Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures) 4 (New Series):129–149.Google Scholar
DerAuwera, Johan Auwera, Johan. 2002. More thoughts on degrammaticalization. In Wischer, and Diewald, , eds., 19–29.
Verhagen, Arie. 2001. Subordination and discourse segmentation revisited, or: Why matrix clauses may be more dependent than complements. In Ted Sanders, Joost Schilperood, and Wilbert Spooren, eds., Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects, 337–357. (Human Cognitive Processing, 8.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, F. Th. 1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Part Three: Second Half: Syntactical Units with Two and with More Verbs. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. 1972. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Part Two: Syntactical Units with One Verb (continued). Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. 1970. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Part One: Syntactical Units with One Verb. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. 1969. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Part Three: First Half: Syntactical Units with Two Verbs. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 2006. The rise of discourse markers in Italian: A specific type of language change. In Fischer, , ed., 61–76.
Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Imperatives, interruption in conversation and the rise of discourse markers: A study of Italian guarda. Linguistics 40:987–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wårvik, Brita. 1995. The ambiguous adverbial/conjunction þa and þonne in Middle English: A discourse-pragmatic study of then and when in early English Saints’ Lives. In Jucker, , ed., 345–357.
Wårvik, Brita. 1990. On grounding in English narratives: A diachronic perspective. In Sylvia, Adamson, Vivien, Law, Nigel, Vincent, and Susan, Wright, eds., Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 559–575. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 65.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 1989. Taking the pitcher to the ‘well’: Native speakers’ perception of their use of discourse markers in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 13:203–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wee, Lionel. 2003. The birth of a particle: Know in Colloquial Singapore English. World Englishes 22:5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, Anne. 2001. Spoken parentheticals. In Karin, Aijmer, ed., A Wealth of English: Studies in Honor of Göran Kjellmer, 177–193. (Gothenburg Studies in English, 81.) Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and Culture. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willinsky, John. 1994. Empire of Words: The Reign of the OED. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wischer, Ilse. 2000. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization: ‘methinks’ there is some confusion. In Fischer, , Rosenbach, , and Stein, , eds., 355–370.CrossRef
Wischer, Ilse and Gabriele, Diewald, eds., 2002. New Reflections on Grammaticalization. (Typological Studies in Language, 49.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Francis A. 1899. Understand, guess, think, mean, semasiologically explained. Modern Language Notes 14:129–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Xiaohong. 2006. Grammaticalization of pragmatic markers in Friends. US-China Foreign Language 4.7:67–71.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
  • Laurel J. Brinton, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
  • Book: The Comment Clause in English
  • Online publication: 12 July 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551789.012
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
  • Laurel J. Brinton, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
  • Book: The Comment Clause in English
  • Online publication: 12 July 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551789.012
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
  • Laurel J. Brinton, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
  • Book: The Comment Clause in English
  • Online publication: 12 July 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551789.012
Available formats
×