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-f554764f5-44mx8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-19T03:29:17.551Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2025

Jan Nuyts
Jan Nuyts
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Modality in Mind , pp. 278 - 291
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra (2012). The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology 16: 435–485.Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, Ayhan and Slobin, Dan I. (1986). A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish. In: Chafe, W. and Nichols, J. (eds.), Evidentiality, 159–167. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Anderson, Lloyd B. (1986). Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps. In: Chafe, W. and Nichols, J. (eds.), Evidentiality, 273–312. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Athanasiadou, Angeliki, Canakis, Costas and Cornillie, Bert (eds.) (2006). Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der and Zamorano Aguilar, Alfonso (2016). The history of modality and mood. In: Nuyts, J. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 9–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der and Plungian, Vladimir A. (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile (1958). De la subjectivité dans le langage. Journal de Psychologie normale et pathologique 55: 257–265.Google Scholar
Bhat, D. N. S. (1999). The prominence of tense, aspect and mood. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bois, John Du (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 64: 805–855.Google Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny and Fortuin, Egbert (2016). Modality and mood in cognitive linguistics and construction grammars. In: Nuyts, J. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 514–534. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper (2012). Epistemic meaning. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper (2016). The expression of epistemic modality. In: Nuyts, J. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 117–140. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucciarelli, Monica and Johnson-Laird, Philip (2005). Naive deontics: A theory of meaning, representation, and reasoning. Cognitive Psychology 50: 159–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bustos, Eduardo de (1995). On the very idea of cognitivism. Pragmatics & Cognition 3: 147–157.Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher (2003). Structure and function. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher (2008). Cognitive adequacy in structural-functional theories of language. Language Sciences 30: 1–30.Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher (2009). Criteria of adequacy in functional linguistics. Folia Linguistica 43: 1–66.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. (1985). Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. (1988). Semantic substance vs. contrast in the development of grammatical meaning. Berkeley Linguistic Society 14: 247–264.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. and Fleischman, Suzanne (eds.) (1995). Modality in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. and Pagliuca, William (1985). Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning. In: Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical semantics – historical word-formation, 59–83. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D. and Pagliuca, William (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Byloo, Pieter (2009). Modality and negation: A corpus-based study. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
Byloo, Pieter and Nuyts, Jan (2013). Modal auxiliaries and tense: The case of Dutch. In: Jaszczolt, K. and de Saussure, L. (eds.), Time: Language, cognition, and reality, 73–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Byloo, Pieter and Nuyts, Jan (2014). Meaning change in the Dutch core modals: (Inter)subjectification in a grammatical paradigm. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 46: 85–116.Google Scholar
Byloo, Pieter, Kastein, Richard and Nuyts, Jan (2006). On certainly and zeker. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 20: 45–72.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert and Depraetere, Ilse (eds.) (2016). Modal meaning in construction grammar. Special issue, Constructions and Frames 8: 1–129.Google Scholar
Carey, Kathleen (1995). Subjectification and the development of the English perfect. In: Stein, D. and Wright, S. (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectification, 83–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn (2002). Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind & Language 17: 127–148.Google Scholar
Celle, Agnès and Lansari, Laure (eds.) (2015). Expressing and describing surprise. Special issue, Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13: 265–477.Google Scholar
Celle, Agnès and Tsangalidis, Anastasios (eds.) (2017). The linguistic expression of mirativity. Special issue, Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15: 305–575.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace (1970). Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace (1980). The deployment of consciousness in the production of a narrative. In: Chafe, W. (ed.), The pear stories, 9–50. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In: Chafe, W. and Nichols, J. (eds.), Evidentiality, 261–272. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace (1994). Discourse, consciousness and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace and Nichols, Johanna (eds.) (1986). Evidentiality. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Choi, Soonja (1995). The development of epistemic sentence-ending modal forms and functions in Korean children. In: Bybee, J. and Fleischman, S. (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 165–204. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, Soonja (2006). Acquisition of modality. In: Frawley, W. (ed.), The expression of modality, 141–171. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra and Timberlake, Alan (1985). Tense, aspect and mood. In: Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 202–258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo (1999). Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard (1985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert (2007). Evidentiality and epistemic modality in Spanish (semi-)auxiliaries. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert (2009). Evidentiality and epistemic modality. Functions of Language 16: 44–62.Google Scholar
Corpus gesproken Nederlands (2006). Version 2.0. Leiden: TST-Centrale INL. http://tst-centrale.org/images/stories/producten/documentatie/cgn_website/doc_English/start.htm.Google Scholar
Croft, William (2001). Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William and Cruse, Allan (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen (2013). Tense-aspect-mood-evidentiality (TAME) and the organization of human memory. In: Molsing, K. and Tramunt Ibaños, A. (eds.), Time and TAME in language, 22–52. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo (1996). The dispute on the primacy of thinking or speaking. In: Dascal, M., Gerhardus, D., Lorenz, K. and Meggle, G. (eds.), Sprachphilosophie – Philosophy of Language – La philosophie du langage, vol. 2, 1024–1041. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo (2002). Language as a cognitive technology. International Journal of Cognition and Technology 1: 35–61.Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo (2003). Interpretation and understanding. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott (1986). Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan. In: Chafe, W. and Nichols, J. (eds.), Evidentiality, 203–213. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott (1997). Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1: 33–52.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott (2001). The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 369–382.Google Scholar
De Schutter, Georges (1983). Modaliteit en andere modificaties in de Nederlandse grammatica. In: Daems, F. and Goossens, L. (eds.), Een spyeghel voor G. Jo Steenbergen, 277–291. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
De Schutter, Georges and Nuyts, Jan (1983). Toward an integrated model of a functional grammar. In: Dik, S. (ed.), Advances in functional grammar, 387–404. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik and Verstraete, Jean-Christophe (2006). Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics 17: 365–392.Google Scholar
Dietrich, Rainer (1992). Modalität im Deutschen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele and Smirnova, Elena (eds.) (2010). Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. (1978). Functional grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. (1987). Linguistically motivated knowledge representation. In: Nagao, M. (ed.), Language and artificial intelligence, 145–170. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. (1997). The theory of functional grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald (1980). Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan (2006). Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Cognitive Linguistics 17: 491–534.Google Scholar
Everett, Dan (2012). Language: The cultural tool. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles (1985). Mental spaces. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles and Turner, Mark (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles (1968). The case for case. In: Bach, E. and Harms, R. T. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. London: Holt.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles (1977). Topics in lexical semantics. In: Cole, R. (ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory, 76–138. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6: 222–254.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles (1988). The mechanisms of ‘construction grammar.’ Berkeley Linguistic Society 14: 35–55.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul and O’Connor, Mary C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical construction: The case of ‘let alone.’ Language 64: 501–538.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Lee-Goldman, Russell and Rhomieux, Russell (2012). The FrameNet constructicon. In: Boas, H. C. and Sag, I. A. (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar, 309–372. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Fischer, Rico and Plessow, Franziska (2015). Efficient multitasking: Parallel versus serial processing of multiple tasks. Frontiers in Psychology 6: article 1366.Google ScholarPubMed
Fodor, Jerry A. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. and Van Valin, Robert D. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fortuin, Egbert (2008). The construction of degree in Russian. In: Houtzagers, P., Kalsbeek, J. and Schaeken, J. (eds.), Dutch contributions to the Fourteenth International Congress of Slavists, 45–108. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart and Huitink, Janneke (2006). Modal concord. In: Dekker, P. and Zeijlstra, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2006 workshop ‘Concord phenomena at the syntax-semantics interface,’ 15–20. Málaga: Universidad de Málaga.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy (1982). Evidentiality and epistemic space. Studies in Language 6: 23–49.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy (1984). Syntax. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy (2001). Syntax. 2 vols. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele (1995). Constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele (2006). Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goossens, Louis (1982). On the development of the modals and of the epistemic function in English. In: Ahlqvist, A. (ed.), Papers from the 5th international conference on historical linguistics, 74–84. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goossens, Louis (1983). Can and kunnen: Dutch and English potential compared. In: Daems, F. and Goossens, L. (eds.), Een spyeghel voor G. Jo Steenbergen, 147–158. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
Goossens, Louis (1985). Modality and the modals. In: Bolkestein, M., De Groot, C. and Mackenzie, L. (eds.), Predicates and terms in functional grammar, 203–217. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goossens, Louis (1999). Metonymic bridges in modal shifts. In: Panther, K.-U. and Radden, G. (eds.), Metonymy in language and cognition, 193–210. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul (1968). Utterer’s meaning, sentence meaning, and word meaning. Foundations of Language 4: 225–42.Google Scholar
Haan, Ferdinand de (2006). Typological approaches to modality. In: Frawley, W. (ed.), The expression of modality, 27–69. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J. and van den Toorn, M. C. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst. 2nd ed. Groningen: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. (1970). Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6: 322–361.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. 2nd ed. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. and Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert (1975). Language, thought and communication. In: Gunderson, K. (ed.), Language, mind and knowledge, 270–298. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania (2006). The changing languages of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees (1988). Illocution, mood and modality in a functional grammar of Spanish. Journal of Semantics 6: 227–269.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees (1989). Layers and operators in functional grammar. Journal of Linguistics 25: 127–157.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees and Mackenzie, Lachlan (2008). Functional discourse grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickmann, Maya and Bassano, Dominique (2016). Modality and mood in first language acquisition. In: Nuyts, J. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 430–447. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hofmann, Thomas R. (1976). Past tense replacement and the modal system. In: McCawley, J. (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 7: Notes from the linguistic underground, 85–100. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul (1998). Emergent grammar. In: Tomasello, M. (ed.), The new psychology of language, 155–175. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul and Traugott, Elizabeth (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huitink, Janneke (2012). Modal concord: A case study of Dutch. Journal of Semantics 29: 403–437.Google Scholar
Hurford, Jim (2007). The origins of meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, Elly (2001). Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray (1987). Consciousness and the computational mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman (1957). Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. In: Jakobson, R. (eds.) (1971), Selected writings, vol. 2, 130–147. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Janssens, Karolien (2015). The diachrony of the mental state predicates in Dutch. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
Janssens, Karolien and Nuyts, Jan (2014a). ‘Nu thenke, wannan thaz geschehan si’: Een diachrone analyse van denken. Nederlandse Taalkunde 19: 311–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssens, Karolien and Nuyts, Jan (2014b). How did we think? In: de los Ángeles Gómez González, M., Ruíz de Mendoza Ibañez, F., Gonzálvez García, F. and Downing, A. (eds.), The functional perspective on language and discourse, 149–167. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul (1996). Intra-speaker relativity. In: Gumperz, J. and Levinson, S. (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 97–114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kehayov, Petar (2017). The fate of mood and modality in language death: Evidence from Minor Finnic. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam (2004). Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc (1984). Focus and modality. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 24: 55–81.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika (1978). Semantik der Rede. Königstein: Scriptor.Google Scholar
Krawczak, Karolina (2016). Objectivity, subjectivity and intersubjectivity: Integrating two cognitive-functional theories. Functions of Language 23: 179–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lang, Ewald (1979). Zum Status der Satzadverbiale. Slovo a Slovenost 40: 200–213.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald (1974). Movement rules in functional perspective. Language 50: 630–664.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald (1988). A usage-based model. In: Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics, 127–161. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald (1993). Deixis and subjectivity. In: Verma, S. K. and Prakasam, V. (eds.), New horizons in functional linguistics, 43–58. Hyderabad: Booklinks.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald (1997). The contextual basis of cognitive semantics. In: Nuyts, J. and Pederson, E. (eds.), Language and conceptualization, 229–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In: Barlow, M. and Kemmer, S. (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 1–63. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald (2001). Dynamicity in grammar. Axiomathes 12: 7–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald (2002). Remarks on the English grounding systems. In: Brisard, F. (ed.), Grounding, 29–38. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald (2005). Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical and less so. In: Ruiz, F. de Ibáñez, Mendoza and Peña Cervel, S. (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction, 101–159. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald (2007). Cognitive grammar. In: Geeraerts, D. and Cuyckens, H. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 421–462. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert (2001). On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 359–367.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang (1993). Cognitive constraints on expressing newly perceived information: With reference to epistemic modal suffixes in Korean. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 135–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemmens, Maarten and Sahoo, Kalyanamalini (2017). Something’s gotta go, something’s gotta give: Completion, mirativity and transitivity in Odia light verb constructions. Studia Linguistica 71: 337–367.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M. (1989). Speaking. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M. (1999). Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In: Brown, C. M. and Hagoort, P. (eds.), The neurocognition of language, 83–122. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen (1997). From outer to inner space: Linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking. In: Nuyts, J. and Pederson, E. (eds.), Language and conceptualization, 13–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frank (2016). Modality and mood in Oceanic. In: Nuyts, J. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 330–361. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José (2010). Subjectification and intersubjectification. In: Jucker, A. and Taavitsainen, I. (eds.), Historical pragmatics, 127–163. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lötscher, Andreas (1985). Akzentuierung und Thematisierbarkeit von Angaben. Linguistische Berichte 97: 228–251.Google Scholar
Lund, Nick (2001). Attention and pattern recognition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lyons, John (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John (1982). Deixis and subjectivity. In: Jarvella, R. and Klein, W. (eds.), Speech, place and action, 101–124. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Lachlan M. and Gómez Gonzáles, Maria A. (eds.) (2003). A new architecture for functional grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
MacLeod, Colin (2020). Zeigarnik and von Restorff: The memory effects and the stories behind them. Memory & Cognition 48: 1073–1088.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej (2011). Interaction of verbal categories. Linguistics 49: 229–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Richard (2003). Modal auxiliary constructions, TAM and interrogatives. In: Facchinetti, R., Krug, M. G. and Robert Palmer, F. (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 47–70. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mauri, Caterina and Sansò, Andrea (2016). The linguistic marking of (ir)realis and subjunctive. In: Nuyts, J. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 166–195. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, David (1992). Hand and mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, David (eds.) (2000). Language and gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, Cécile (2003). The meaning of too, enough and so … that. Natural Language Semantics 11: 69–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mélac, Eric (2014). L’évidentialité en Anglais: Approche contrastive à partir d’un corpus Anglais-Tibétain. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne (2016). Modality and mood in Iroquoian. In: Nuyts, J. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 223–257. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mortelmans, Tanja (2004). Grammatikalisierung und Subjektivierung. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 32: 188–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, Pieter, Hammarström, Harald, Birchall, Joshua, van Gijn, Rik, Krasnoukhova, Olga and Müller, Neele (2015). Linguistic areas, bottom-up or top-down? In: Comrie, B. and Golluscio, L. (eds.), Language contact and documentation, 205–238. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko (2005a). On defining modality again. Language Sciences 27: 165–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko (2005b). Modality, mood, and change of modal meanings. Cognitive Linguistics 16: 677–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko (2009). Modality in Japanese. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko (2010a). (Inter)subjectification in the domain of modality and mood. In: Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L. and Cuyckens, H. (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 385–429. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko (2010b). Modality and speaker orientation. Paper presented at the International Conference on Grammaticalization and (Inter)Subjectification, Brussels, November 11–13, 2010.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko (2010c). The order of meaningful elements in the Japanese verbal complex. Morphology 20: 205–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko (2012). Modality and speech-act orientation. In: van der Auwera, J. and Nuyts, J. (eds.), Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification, 21–36. Brussels: Royal Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko (2016). The expression of non-epistemic modal categories. In: Nuyts, J. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 89–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna (1986). The bottom line: Chinese Pidgin Russian. In: Chafe, W. and Nichols, J. (eds.), Evidentiality, 239–257. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (1989). Functional procedural grammar: An overview. Working Papers in Functional Grammar 31: 1–45.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (1990). Linguistic representation and conceptual knowledge representation. In: Nuyts, J., Bolkestein, A. M. and Vet, C. (eds.), Layers and levels of representation in language theory, 263–293. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (1992). Aspects of a cognitive-pragmatic theory of language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (1993a). On determining the functions of language. Semiotica 94: 201–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (1993b). From language to conceptualization: The case of epistemic modality. Papers from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 2: What We Think, What We Mean, and How We Say It: 271–286.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (1993c). Cognitive linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics 20: 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (1994). The intentional and the socio-cultural in language use. Pragmatics and Cognition 2: 237–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (1995). Afterthoughts to E. de Bustos’s ‘On the very idea of cognitivism.’ Pragmatics & Cognition 3: 279–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2000). Tensions between discourse structure and conceptual semantics: The syntax of epistemic modal expressions. Studies in Language 24: 103–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2001a). Epistemic modality, language and conceptualization. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2001b). Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 383–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2002). Grounding and the system of epistemic expressions in Dutch: A cognitive-functional view. In: Brisard, F. (ed.), Grounding, 433–466. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2003). Layering of qualifications in a cognitive perspective. In: Molina Ávila, C., Blanco Gómez, M. L., Marín Arrese, J., Rodríguez Redondo, A. L. and Romano Mozo, M. (eds.), Cognitive linguistics in Spain at the turn of the century, vol. 1: Grammar and semantics, 81–101. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2004a). Over de (beperkte) combineerbaarheid van deontische, epistemische en evidentiële uitdrukkingen in het Nederlands. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 108: 1–136.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2004b). Remarks on layering in a cognitive-functional language production model. In: Mackenzie, J. L. and Gómez Gonzáles, M. A. (eds.), A new architecture for functional grammar, 275–298. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2005a). The modal confusion: On terminology and the concepts behind it. In: Klinge, A. and Müller, H. H. (eds.), Modality: Studies in form and function, 5–38. London: Equinox.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2005b). Brothers in arms? On the relations between cognitive and functional linguistics. In: Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. and Peña Cervel, S. (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction, 69–100. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2006). Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In: Frawley, W. (ed.), The expression of modality, 1–26. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2007a). Cognitive linguistics and functional linguistics. In: Geeraerts, D. and Cuyckens, H. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 543–565. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2007b). Kunnen diachroon. Taal en Tongval 59: 118–148.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2008). Qualificational meanings, illocutionary signals, and the cognitive planning of language use. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6: 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2009a). The ‘one-commitment-per-clause’ principle and the cognitive status of qualificational categories. Linguistics 47: 141–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2009b). Language, conceptualization, and TAM marking: A cognitive-functional perspective. Wai guo yu (Journal of Foreign Languages, Shanghai) 32/1: 2–43.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2011). Pattern versus process concepts of grammar and mind: A cognitive-functional perspective. In: Brdar, M., Gries, S. T. and Žic Fuchs, M. (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Convergence and expansion, 47–66. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2012a). Notions of (inter)subjectivity. English Text Construction 5: 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2012b). Language is an instrument of thought. Really? Pragmatics & Cognition 20: 317–333.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2013). De-auxiliarization without de-modalization in the Dutch core modals: A case of collective degrammaticalization? Language Sciences 36: 124–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2014). Subjectivity in modality, and beyond. In: Zuczkowski, A., Bongelli, R., Riccioni, I. and Canestrari, C. (eds.), Communicating certainty and uncertainty in medical, supportive and scientific contexts, 13–30. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2015). Subjectivity: Between discourse and conceptualization. Journal of Pragmatics 86: 106–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2016a). Surveying modality and mood: An introduction. In: Nuyts, J. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 1–8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2016b). Analyses of the modal meanings. In: Nuyts, J. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 31–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2017). Evidentiality reconsidered. In: Marin-Arrese, J. I., Haßler, G. and Carretero, M. (eds.), Evidentiality revisited: Cognitive Grammar, functional and discourse-pragmatic perspectives, 57–83. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan and Byloo, Pieter (2015). Competing modals: Beyond (inter)subjectification. Diachronica 32: 34–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan and Johan, van der Auwera (eds.) (2016). The Oxford handbook of modality and mood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan and Vonk, Wietske (1999). Epistemic modality and focus in Dutch. Linguistics 37: 699–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan, Byloo, Pieter and Diepeveen, Janneke (2007). Mogen en moeten en de relaties tussen deontische modaliteit en modus. Nederlandse Taalkunde 12: 153–174.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan, Byloo, Pieter and Diepeveen, Janneke (2010). On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: The case of Dutch mogen and moeten. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 16–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan, Diepeveen, Janneke and Byloo, Pieter (2007). Hopen is niet ‘niet vrezen,’ vrezen is niet ‘niet hopen.’ In: Sandra, D., Rymenans, R., Cuvelier, P. and Van Petegem, P. (eds.), Tussen taal, spelling en onderwijs, 101–112. Ghent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. (1979). Modality and the English modals. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. (1983). Semantic explanations for the syntax of the English modals. In: Heny, F. and Richards, B. (eds.), Linguistic categories, vol. 2, 205–217. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. (2001). Mood and modality. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, Anna (2000). Modality. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula (eds.) (2014). Constructing collectivity: ‘We’ across languages and contexts. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pederson, Eric and Nuyts, Jan (1997). On the relationship between language and conceptualization. In: Nuyts, J. and Pederson, E. (eds.), Language and conceptualization, 1–12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Perkins, Michael R. (1982). The core meanings of the English modals. Journal of Linguistics 18: 245–273.Google Scholar
Perkins, Michael R. (1983). Modal expressions in English. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Peterson, Tyler (2017). Problematizing mirativity. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15: 312–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plank, Frans (1981). Modalitätsausdruck zwischen Autonomie und Auxiliarität. In: Rosengren, I. (ed.), Sprache und Pragmatik, 57–71. Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir (2001). The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul (2009). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, Mark (2013). Person-sensitive TAME marking in Galo. In: Thornes, T., Andvik, E., Hyslop, G. and Jansen, J. (eds.), Functional-historical approaches to explanation, 107–130. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ransom, Evelyn (1977). On the representation of modality. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 357–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ransom, Evelyn (1986). Complementation: Its meanings and forms. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas (1968). Topics in philosophical logic. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivero, María. and Slavkov, Nikolay (2014). Imperfect(ive) variation. Lingua 150: 232–277.Google Scholar
Rocci, Andrea (2013). Modal conversational backgrounds and evidential bases in predictions. In: Jaszczolt, K. and De Saussure, L. (eds.), Time, 128–153. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sahoo, Kalyanamalini and Lemmens, Maarten (2017). Degrees of mirativity. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15: 343–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne (2002). Point of view and grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne (2004). Inclusive and exclusive patterning of the English first person plural. In: Achard, M. and Kemmer, S. (eds.), Language, culture and mind, 377–396. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne (2014). Referentiality, predicate patterns, and functions of we-utterances in American English interactions. In: Pavlidou, T.-S. (ed.), Constructing collectivity: ‘We’ across languages and contexts, 23–43. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Stefan (2007). Reduced parenthetical clauses as mitigators. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schneider, Walter and Shiffrin, Richard M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing, I: Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review 84: 1–66.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger (2008). The semantics of comparatives and other degree constructions. Language and Linguistics Compass 2: 308–331.Google Scholar
Searle, John (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John (1989). How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 535–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, Barbara and Janzen, Terry (2016). Modality and mood in American Sign Language. In: Nuyts, J. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 448–469. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shepherd, Susan C. (1982). From deontic to epistemic. In: Ahlqvist, A. (ed.), Papers from the 5th international conference on historical linguistics, 316–323. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shepherd, Susan C. (1993). The acquisition of modality in Antiguan Creole. In: Dittmar, N. and Reich, A. (eds.), Modality in language acquisition, 171–184. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, Richard M. and Schneider, Walter (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing, II: Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review 84: 127–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, Carmen (1995). Contextual conditions for the interpretation of poder and deber in Spanish. In: Bybee, J. and Fleischman, S. (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 67–105. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Simpson, Paul (1993). Language, ideology and point of view. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, Chris (1994). Review of Nuyts (1992), ‘Aspects of a cognitive-pragmatic theory of language.’ Cognitive Linguistics 5: 185–189.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. (1996). From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking.’ In: Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. and Aksu, Ayhan (1982). Tense, aspect, and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential. In: Hopper, P. (ed.), Tense-aspect, 185–200. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Squartini, Mario (2016). Interactions between modality and other semantic categories. In: Nuyts, J. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 50–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steele, Susan (1975a). Is it possible? Working Papers on Language Universals 18: 35–58.Google Scholar
Steele, Susan (1975b). On some factors that affect and effect word order. In: Li, C. (ed.), Word order and word order change, 197–268. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Stephany, Ursula (1986). Modality. In: Fletcher, P. and Garman, M. (eds.), Language acquisition, 375–400. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephany, Ursula (1993). Modality in first language acquisition: The state of the art. In: Dittmar, N. and Reich, A. (eds.), Modality in language acquisition, 133–144. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12: 49–100.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65: 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In: Stein, D. and Wright, S. (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2006). Historical aspects of modality. In: Frawley, W. (ed.), The expression of modality, 107–139. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification. In: Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L. and Cuyckens, H. (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van linden, An and Verstraete, Jean-Christophe (2011). Revisiting deontic modality and related categories. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 150–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Olmen, Daniel and van der Auwera, Johan (2016). Modality and mood in Standard Average European. In: Nuyts, J. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 362–384. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Ostaeyen, Gerd and Nuyts, Jan (2004). De diachronie van kunnen. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 109: 1–186.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. (1993). A synopsis of role and reference grammar. In: Van Valin, R. (ed.), Advances in role and reference grammar, 1–164. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. (2005). Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. and LaPolla, Randy J. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie (1986). Linguistic theory and the function of word order in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie (1995). Subjectification, syntax, and communication. In: Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectification, 103–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie (2009). The conception of constructions as complex signs. Constructions and Frames 1: 119–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe (2005). Scalar quantity implicatures and the interpretation of modality: Problems in the deontic domain. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1401–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe (2007). Rethinking the coordinate-subordinate dichotomy. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visconti, Jacqueline (2013). Facets of subjectification. Language Sciences 36: 7–17.Google Scholar
Wärnsby, Anna (2016). On the adequacy of a constructionist approach to modality. Constructions and Frames 8: 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard (1984). An analysis of epistemic possibility and probability. English Studies 65: 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. (2011). (Inter)subjectivity and evidential perception verbs in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiemer, Björn (2010). Hearsay in European languages. In: Diewald, G. and Smirnova, E. (eds.), Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages, 59–130. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna (1980). Lingua mentalis. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Willett, Thomas (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12: 51–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony (1986). Interactions of tense and evidentiality: A study of Sherpa and English. In: Chafe, W. and Nichols, J. (eds.), Evidentiality, 188–202. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Wright, Georg H. von (1951). An essay in modal logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Zeigarnik, Bluma (1927). Über das Behalten von erledigten und unerledigten Handlungen. Berlin: Springer.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
  • Jan Nuyts, University of Antwerp
  • Book: Modality in Mind
  • Online publication: 25 March 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009447201.012
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
  • Jan Nuyts, University of Antwerp
  • Book: Modality in Mind
  • Online publication: 25 March 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009447201.012
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
  • Jan Nuyts, University of Antwerp
  • Book: Modality in Mind
  • Online publication: 25 March 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009447201.012
Available formats
×