In:Imperative-Based Dialogic Constructions and Discourse Units
Vassiliki Geka
[Constructional Approaches to Language 39] 2025
► pp. 169–191
Data resources and corpora
Published online: 1 April 2025
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.39.refs
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.39.refs
BNC The British National Corpus, version 3 (XML
Edition). (2007). Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on
behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL: [URL] Data cited herein have been
extracted from the British National Corpus, distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC
Consortium. All rights in the texts cited are reserved.
CED Cambridge English Dictionary. Cambridge University Press. [URL]
COCA The Corpus of Contemporary American
English. (1990–2018). Compiled by M. Davies, Release
2008, 560 million words. Available online at [URL]
ColED Collins English Dictionary. HarperCollins
Publishers. [URL]
Grammarist. [URL]
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V. (2014). The
Sketch Engine: ten years
on. Lexicography, 1(1) 7–36. . Database available at [URL]
OED Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. [URL]
WordReference English Dictionary. [URL]
List of references
Aarts, B. (2007). Syntactic
gradience: The nature of grammatical
indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational
routines in English. Convention and creativity. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
(2013). Understanding
pragmatic markers: a variational pragmatic
approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
(2015). Analysing
Discourse Markers in Spoken Corpora: Actually as a Case
Study. In P. Baker, & T. McEnery (Eds.), Corpora
and Discourse Studies. Integrating Discourse and Corpora: Integrating discourse and
corpora (Palgrave Advances in Language and
Linguistics). (pp. 88–109). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
(2016). Pragmatic
markers as constructions. The case of anyway. In G. Kaltenböck, E. Kezier, & A. Lohmann (Eds.), Outside
the Clause: Form and Function of Extra-clausal
Constituents (pp. 29–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Aijmer, K., Foolen, A., & Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (2006). Pragmatic
markers in translation: a methodological proposal. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches
to Discourse
Particles (pp.101–114). Oxford/Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Aijmer, K., & Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (2004). “A
Model and a Methodology for the Study of Pragmatic Markers: The Semantic Field of
Expectation.” Journal of
Pragmatics, 36(10), 1781–1805.
(2006). Evidentiality
in grammar. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of languages and
Linguistics (pp. 320–325). Oxford: Elsevier.
Antonopoulou, E., & Nikiforidou, K. (2011). Construction
grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal
incongruity. Journal of
Pragmatics, 43(10), 2594–2609.
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zeschel, A. (2010). Cognitive
Corpus Linguistics: five points of debate on current theory and
methodology. Corpora, 5(1), 1–27.
Atkins, B. T. S., & Rundell, M. (2008). The
Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography. New York: Oxford University Press.
Audring, J. (2019). Mothers
or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word
Structure, 12(3), 274–296.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The
Dialogic Imagination (Εd. M. Holquist, Τrans. C. Emerson & M. Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1975).
(1986). Speech
Genres and Other Late Essays (C. Emerson, & M. Holquist, Εds., V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1979).
Barth-Weingarten, D., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2002). On
the development of final though: A case of
grammaticalization? In I. Wischer, & G. Diewald (Eds.), New
Reflections on
Grammaticalization (pp. 345–361). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Beck, S., Berezovskaya, P., & Pflugfelder, K. (2009). The
use of ‘again’ in 19th-century English versus Present-Day
English. Syntax, 12(3), 193–214.
Beeching, K. (2002). Gender,
Politeness and Pragmatic Particles in
French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych-verbs
and θ theory. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory, 6(3), 291–352.
Bender, E. (1999). Constituting
context: null objects in English recipes revisited. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Penn
Linguistics Colloquium. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in
Linguistics, 6(1), 53–68. [URL]
Bertuccelli Papi, M. (1998). Where
Grice feared to thread: inferring attitudes and
emotions. In G. Cosenza (Ed.), Paul
Grice’s
Heritage (pp. 247–281). San Marino: Brepols Publishers.
Bertuccelli Papi, M., Cappelli, G., & Masi, S. (Eds.). (2007). Lexical
Complexity: Theoretical Assessment and Translational
Perspectives (pp. 53–64). Pisa: Pisa University Press.
Biber, D. (2009). A
corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and
writing. International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, 14(3), 275–311.
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles
of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and
affect. Text, 9(1), 93–124.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman
grammar of spoken and written
English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Boas, F. (2002). Handbook
of American Indian languages. Bristol: Thoemmes Press. (Original work published 1911)
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (Εds.). (2008). Cognitive
Linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and
phraseology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bolinger, D. (1966). Modern
Spanish. A Project of the Modern Language Association. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
Bondi, M. (2002). “Attitude
and episteme in academic discourse: adverbials of stance across genres and
moves”, Textus, 15(2), 249–264.
Bonifazi, A., Drummen, A., & de Kreij, M. (2016). Particles
in Ancient Greek Discourse: Five Volumes Exploring Particle Use across Genres. Hellenic Studies
Series 74. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. [URL]
Booij, G. (2005). The
Demarcation of Derivation and Compounding: Evidence for Construction
Morphology. In W. U. Dressler, F. Rainer, D. Kastovsky, & O. Pfeiffer (Eds.), Demarcation
in
Morphology (pp. 111–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Booth, J. R., & Hall, W. S. (1995). Development
of the understanding of the polysemous mental state verb “know.” Cognitive
Development, 10(4), 529–549.
Bres, J., Nowakowska, A., & Sarale, J- M. (2016). Anticipative
interlocutive dialogism: Sequential patterns and linguistic markers in French. Journal of
Pragmatics, 96, 80–95.
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting
the dative alternation. In G. Bouma, I. Krämer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive
foundations of
interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic
Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse
Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2001). From
matrix clause to pragmatic marker: The history of look-forms. Journal of Historical
Pragmatics, 2(2), 177–199.
(2006). Pathways
in the Development of Pragmatic Markers in English. In A. van Kemenade, & B. Los (Eds.), The
Handbook of the History of
English (pp.307–334). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
(2008). The
Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic
Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness:
Some Universals in Language
Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bruil, M. (2014). Clause-typing
and evidentiality in Ecuadorian Siona [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. University of Leiden. [URL]
Buber, M. (1958). I
and Thou (Trans. R. G. Smith,). New York: Scribner. (Original work published
1929)
Calabrese, A. (1986). Some
properties of the Italian pronominal system: An analysis based on the notion of thema as subject of
predication. In H. Stammerjohann (Ed.), Tema-Rema
in
Italiano (pp.25–36). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle
placement and the case for
“allostructions.” Constructions, 1(7), 1–28.
Cappelli, G. (2005). “Modulating
attitudes via adverbs: A cognitive-pragmatic approach to the lexicalization of epistemological
evaluation”. In M. Bertuccelli Papi (Ed.), Studies
in the semantics of lexical combinatory
patterns (pp. 213–278). Pisa: Plus Pisa University Press.
(2007a). Translating
English Verbs of Cognitive Attitude into Italian: The Difficulties of Mapping two Apparently Equivalent Complex
Systems. In M. Bertuccelli Papi, G. Cappelli, & S. Masi (Εds.), Lexical
Complexity: Theoretical Assessment and Translational
Perspectives (pp.177–202). Pisa: Edizioni Plus.
(2007b). “I
Reckon I know how Leonardo da Vinci must have felt…” Epistemicity, Evidentiality and English Verbs of Cognitive
Attitude. Pari: Pari Publishing.
(2008). Antonymy
and Verbs of Cognitive Attitude: When Know is the Opposite of Think and
Believe. In M. Bertuccelli Papi, A. Bertacca, & S. Bruti (Eds.), Threads
in the Complex Fabric of
Language (pp. 529–546). Pisa: Felici Editore.
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts
and utterances: the pragmatics of explicit
communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Carston, R. & Uchida, S. (Eds.). (1998). Relevance
Theory: Applications and
Implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge
grammar of English: A comprehensive guide: Spoken and written English grammar and
usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse,
Consciousness, and Time. The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and
Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Chen, J. (2017). Dialogicity
in dialogue: Deriving Chinese discourse marker bieshuo from the negative
imperative. Journal of
Pragmatics, 110, 34–49.
(2019). What
Are Discourse Markers? In J. Tan, & K. Liu (Eds.), Advances
in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research: Vol. 268. Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on Health and Education
2019 (pp. 1–9). Atlantis Press.
Chondrogianni, M. (2011). The pragmatics of the modal particles να, θα, ας and
μη(ν). In K. Chatzopoulou, A. Ioannidou, & S. Yoon (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 9th international conference on Greek
linguistics (pp. 322–332). Chicago, Illinois, USA, University of Chicago.
Colleman, T. (2020). The
emergence of the dative alternation in Dutch: Towards the establishment of a horizontal
link. In C. Fedriani, & M. Napoli (Eds.), The
Diachrony of
Ditransitives (pp. 137–168). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Cornillie, B. (2009). Evidentiality
and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different
categories. Functions of
Language, 16(1), 44–62.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). “What
does grammar tell us about
action?”. Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–647.
(2001). Radical
construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological
perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W., & Sutton, L. (2017). Construction
grammar and lexicography. In P. Hanks, & G. M. de Schryver (Eds.), International
Handbook of Modern Lexis and
Lexicography (pp.1–12). Berlin: Springer.
Daisy, B. K. (2005). “The
mental verbs “think” and “believe” in authorial evaluative “that” statements: a corpus study of four academic
disciplines” [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Iowa State University. [URL]
Dallal, G. E., & Wilkinson, L. (1986). “An
analytic approximation to the distribution of Lilliefors’s test statistic for
normality”. The American
Statistician, 40(4), 294–296.
Dancygier, B., & Vandelanotte, L. (2017). Internet
Memes as Multimodal Constructions. Cognitive
Linguistics, 28(3), 565–598.
Davidse, K., & Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (2008). Introduction:
The realization of interpersonal
meaning. WORD, 59(1-2), 3–23.
De Beaugrande, R. (2001). Interpreting
the discourse of H. G. Widdowson: a corpus-based critical discourse analysis. Applied
Linguistics, 22(1), 104–121.
De Cock, B. (2014). Profiling
discourse participants: Forms and functions in Spanish conversation and
debates. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dedaić, M. N., & Mišković-Luković, M. (Eds.). (2010). South
Slavic Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Degand, L. (2014). ‘So
very fast very fast then’ Discourse markers at left and right periphery in spoken
French. In Κ. Beeching, & U. Detges, Discourse
Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language
Change (pp. 151–178). Brill: Leiden.
Degand, L., & Simon, A. C. (2005). Minimal
Discourse Units: Can we define them, and why should we? In M. Aurnague, M. Bras, A. Le Draoulec, & L. Vieu (Eds.), Proceedings
of SEM-05. Connectors, discourse framing and discourse structure: from corpus-based and experimental analyses to discourse
theories (pp. 65–74). Biarritz. [URL]
(2008). Minimal
Discourse Units in Spoken French: Uncovering Genre-bound Segmentation
Strategies. In W. Ramm, & C. Fabricius-Hansen, (Εds.), Linearisation
and Segmentation in Discourse. Multidisciplinary Approaches to Discourse
2008 (pp.31–41). Dept. of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages: Oslo. [URL]
(2009). On
identifying basic discourse units in speech: theoretical and empirical
issues. Discours 4.
de Haan, P. (1992). The
optimum corpus sample size? In G. Leitner (Ed.), New
Directions in English Language
Corpora (pp. 3–19). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
De Knop, S., Boers, F., & de Rycker, T. (Εds.). (2010). Fostering
language teaching efficiency through cognitive
linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
De Lancey, S. (1997). Mirativity:
The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic
Typology, 1, 33–52.
de Villiers, J. G. (1995). Steps
in the mastery of sentence complements [Conference
presentation]. Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Indianapolis, IN.
(2005). Can
language acquisition give children a point of view? In J. Astington, & J. Baird (Eds.), Why
Language Matters for Theory of
Mind (pp. 189–219). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
de Villiers, P. A. (2004). Assessing
pragmatic skills in elicited production. Seminars in Speech and
Language, 25(1), 57–72.
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based
construction grammar. In E. Dąbrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook
of Cognitive
Linguistics (pp. 296–322). Berlin: De Gruyter.
(2019). The
Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language
Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2023). The
Constructicon: Taxonomies and Networks (Elements in Construction
Grammar). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Diewald, G. (2008). The
catalytic function of constructional restrictions in
grammaticalization. In E. Verhoeven, S. Skopeteas, Y.-M. Shin, Y. Nishina, & J. Helmbrecht (Εds.), Studies
on
grammaticalization (pp. 219–240). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Downing, B. T. (1969). ‘Vocatives
and Third-Person Imperatives in English’. Papers in
Linguistics, 1(3), 570–592.
Drew, P., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.). (2014). Requesting
in social interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2007). The
Stance Triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking
in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation,
Interaction (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Enghels, R. (2017, July 16–21). On
the development of the interpersonal epistemic stance construction in Spanish: the case of sabes ‘you know’ and
constructional variant [Conference presentation]. 15th International
Pragmatics Conference, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
(2018). Towards
a constructional approach to discourse-level phenomena : the case of the Spanish interpersonal epistemic stance
construction. FOLIA
LINGUISTICA, 52(1), 107–138.
Enghels, R., & Sansiñena Pascual, M. S. (2021). Discourse-level
phenomena in construction grammars. Constructions and
Frames, 13(1), 3–20.
Faller, M. (2002). Semantics
and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. University of Stanford.
Fernández Soriano, O. (1999). El
pronombre personal. Formas y distribuciones. Pronombres átonos y
tónicos. In I. Bosque, & V. De Monte (Eds.), Gramática
Descriptiva de la Lengua
Española (pp. 1209–1273). Madrid: Espasa.
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity
and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let
alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538.
Fischer, K. (2000). “Discourse
Particles, Turn-Taking, and the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface.” Revue de Sémantique et
Pragmatique, 8, 111–137.
(2010). Beyond
the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and
Frames, 2(2), 185–207.
Fischer, K., & Alm, M. (2013). A
radical construction grammar perspective on the modal particle — discourse particle
distinction. In L. Degand, & B. Cornille (Eds.), Discourse
and Modal
Particles (pp. 47–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Flowerdew, J. (2009). Corpora
in language teaching. In M. H. Long, & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The
handbook of language
teaching (pp.327–335). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Foolen, A. (1996). Pragmatic
Particles. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook
of
Pragmatics (pp.1–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ford, C. E. (2001). At
the intersection of turn and sequence: negation and what comes
next. In M. Selting, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies
in Interactional
Linguistics (pp. 51–79). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2013). Units
and/or action trajectories? The language of grammatical categories and the language of social
action. In S. Reed, B. Barbara, & G. Raymond (Eds.), Units
of Talk — Units of
Action (pp. 13–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Francis, E. J. (2022). Gradient
acceptability and linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic
Markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167–190.
Fried, M. (2009). Construction
Grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and
Frames, 1(2), 261–290.
(2010). “Grammar
and Interaction: New Directions in Constructional Research.” Constructions and
Frames, 2(2), 125–33.
(2015). Irregular
morphology in regular syntactic patterns: A case of constructional
re-alignment. In J. Barðdal, S. Gildea, E. Smirnova, & L. Sommerer (Eds.), Diachronic
Construction
Grammar (pp. 141–174). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2021). Discourse-referential
patterns as a network of grammatical constructions. Constructions and
Frames, 13(1), 21–54.
Fried, M., & Östman, J. -O. (2004). A thumbnail
sketch of construction grammar. In M. Fried, & J.-O. Őstman (Eds.), Construction
Grammar in a Cross-language
Perspective (pp.11–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2005). Construction
grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of
Pragmatics, 37, 1752–1778.
Geeraerts, D. (1988). Prototypicality
as a prototypical notion. Communication and
Cognition, 21(1), 343–355.
Geka, V. (2023). Atypical
Imperative constructions: The case of YOU DO
THAT. Constructions, 15(2), 1–33.
Geka, V., & Marmaridou, S. (2017). Mental
state verbs in dialogic constructions. Online Proceedings of UK-CLA
Meetings, 4, 88–110. [URL]
Geka, V., Marmaridou, S., & Nikiforidou, K. (2020). “Dialogic
constructions and discourse units: The case of THINK AGAIN”. Review of Cognitive
Linguistics, 18(2), 480–518.
Georgakopoulos, T. (2009). “Palin
(again): Semantic and Pragmatic changes of the adverb”
[In Greek]. In A. Karasimos, C. Vlachos, E. Dimela, M. Giakoumelou, N. Koutsoukos, M. Pavlakou, & D. Bougonikolou (Eds.), Proceedings
of the First Patras International Conference of Graduate students in
Linguistics (pp. 292–303). Patras: Patras University Press.
Geurts, B. (1998). Presuppositions
and Anaphors in Attitude Contexts. Linguistics and
Philosophy, 21(6), 595–601.
(2005). Entertaining
alternatives: disjunctions as modals. Natural Language
Semantics, 13(4), 383–410.
Gillette, J., Gleitman, H., Gleitman, L., & Lederer, A. (1999). Human
simulations of vocabulary
learning. Cognition, 73(2), 135–176.
Gilquin, G. (2008). ‘What
you think ain’t what you get: highly polysemous verbs in mind and
language’. In J.-R. Lapaire, G. Desagulier, & J.-B. Guignard (Eds.), Du
fait grammatical au fait cognitif. From Gram to Mind: Grammar as Cognition Vol.
2 (pp. 235–55). Pessac: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux.
Givón, T. (1978). Negation
in Language: Pragmatics, Function, Ontology. In P. Cole, (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 69–112). New York: Academic Press.
Gleitman, L. (1990). The
Structural Sources of Verb Meanings. Language
Acquisition, 1(1), 3–55. [URL]
Gleitman, L., January, D., Nappa, R., & Trueswell, J. (2007). On
the give-and-take between event apprehension and utterance formulation. Journal of Memory
and
Language, 57(4), 544–569.
Goldberg, A. (1995). A
Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(2019). Explain
Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of
Constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Granger, S., & Meunier, F. (Eds.). (2008). Phraseology.
An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gries, S. T. (2006). Some
Proposals towards More Rigorous Corpus Linguistics. Zeitschriftfür Anglistik und
Amerikanistik, 54(2), 191–202.
(2007). New
perspectives on old alternations. In J. E. Cihlar, A. L. Franklin, & D. W. Kaiser (Eds.), Papers
from the 39th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Vol. II. The
Panels (pp.274–292). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.
(2008). Phraseology
and linguistic theory: A brief survey. In S. Granger, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology.
An Interdisciplinary
Perspective (pp. 3–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2010). Corpus
linguistics and theoretical linguistics. A love-hate relationship? Not
necessarily… International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, 15(3), 327–343.
Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending
collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International
Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129.
Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S. (2005). Do
foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting and
corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive
Linguistics, 3(1), 182–200.
Groom, N. (2019). Construction
grammar and the corpus-based analysis of discourses: the case of the WAY IN WHICH
construction. International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, 24(24), 291–323.
Gundel, J. K., Borthen, K., & Fretheim, T. (1999). The
role of context in pronominal reference to higher order entities in English and
Norwegian. In P. Bouquet, M. Benerecetti, L. Serafini, P. Brézillon, & F. Castellani (Eds.), Modeling
and Using Context. Proceedings from the Second International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT
‘99. (pp. 475–478). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive
status and the form of referring expressions in
discourse. Language, 69(2), 274–307.
Günthner, S. (2011). The
construction of emotional involvement in everyday German narratives — interactive uses of ‘dense
constructions’. Pragmatics, 21(4), 573–592.
Günthner, S., & Hopper, P. (2010). Zeitlichkeit
und sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und im Deutschen. Gesprächsforschung
— Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen
Interaktion, 11, 1–18.
Haddican, B. (2015). A
note on Basque vocative clitics. In B. Fernández, & P. Salaburu (Εds.), Ibon
Sarasola,
Gorazarre. (pp. 303–317). Bilbao: University of the Basque Country.
Haegeman, L. (1990). Non-overt
subjects in diary contexts. In J. Mascaro, & M. Nespor (Eds.), Grammar
in Progress, GLOW essays for Henk van
Riemsdijk (pp. 167–174). Dordrecht: Foris.
Hall, W. S., Scholnick, E. K., & Hughes, A. T. (1987). Contextual
constraints on usage of cognitive words. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 16, 289–310.
Han, C. H. (1998). The
structure and interpretation of imperatives: mood and force in Universal
Grammar [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Pennsylvania.
Hanks, P. (2004). Corpus
pattern analysis. In G. Williams, & S. Vessier (Eds.), Proceedings
of the Eleventh EURALEX Proceedings International
Congress (pp. 87–98). Lorient: UBS.
Hannay, M., & Kroon, C. (2005). Acts
and the relationship between discourse and grammar. Functions of
Language, 12, 87–124.
Hansen, M. B. M. (1997). Alors
and donc in spoken French: A reanalysis. Journal of
Pragmatics, 28(2), 153–187.
(1998). The
function of discourse particles. A study with special reference to spoken standard
French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haselow, A. (2015). Left
vs. right periphery in grammaticalization. The case of
anyway. In A. D. M. Smith, G. Trousdale, & R. Waltereit (Eds.), New
Directions in Grammaticalization
Research (pp. 157–186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hayashi, M. (2004). Projection
and grammar: notes on the ‘action-projecting’ use of the distal demonstrative are in
Japanese. Journal of
Pragmatics, 36(8), 1337–1374.
Heath, R. L., Pearce, W. B., Shotter, J., Taylor, J., Kersten, A., Zorn, T., Roper, J., Motion, J., & Deetz, S. (2006). The
process of dialogue: Participation and legitimation. Management Communication
Quarterly, 19, 341–375.
Henry, A. (1995). Belfast
English and Standard English. Dialect Variation and Parameter
Setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(1988). “Explanations
as accounts: a conversation analytic perspective”. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analyzing
Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of
Methods (pp. 127–144). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
(2002). “The
limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content”. Journal of
Pragmatics, 34(10–11), 1427–1446.
Hilpert, M. (2015). From
hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening
hypothesis. Cognitive
Linguistics, 26(1), 113–147.
Hoffmann, T. (2008). English
Relative Clauses and Construction Grammar: A topic which preposition can shed light
on? In G. Trousdale, & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional
Approaches to English Grammar. Topics in English
Linguistics 57(pp. 77–112). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2015). Cognitive
Sociolinguistic Aspects of Football Chants: The Role of Social and Physical Context in Usage-based Construction
Grammar. Zeitschriftfür Anglistik und
Amerikanistik, 63(3), 273–294.
Hoffmann, T., & Bergs, A. (2015). Are
you a construction in disguise? — Soziale und physische Kontexteigenschaften von
Fubballgesangskonstruktionen. In A. Ziem, & A. Lasch (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik
IV: Konstruktionen als soziale Konventionen und cognitive
Routinen (pp. 267–282). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Hölker, K. (1990). “Französisch:
Partikelforschung.” In G. Holtus, M. Metzeltin, & C. Schmitt (Eds.), Lexikon
Der Romanistischen Linguistik vol.
1 (pp. 77–88). Tübingen: M. Niemeyer.
Holme, R. (2012). Cognitive
Linguistics and the second language classroom. TESOL
Quarterly, 46(1), 6–29.
Hooper, J. B. (1975). On
assertive predicates. In J. P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax
and Semantics Vol.
4 (pp. 91–124). New York: Academic Press.
Höpfner, R. (2014). Asymptotic
Statistics with a View to Stochastic Processes. Berlin/ Boston: De Gruyter.
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent
Grammar. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society (pp. 139–157). Berkeley.
Ifantidou, E. (2001). Evidentials
and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
(2005). Evidential
particles and mind-reading. Pragmatics and
Cognition, 13, 253–295.
Imo, W. (2005). A
Construction Grammar approach to the phrase “I mean” in spoken English. InLiSt (Interaction
and Linguistic Structure) 42. [URL]
(2007). Construction
Grammar und Gesprochene-Sprache-Forschung: Konstruktionen mit zehn matrixsatzfähigen Verben im gesprochenen
Deutsch. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer.
(2008). Individuelle
Konstrukte oder Vorboten einer neuen Konstruktion? Stellungsvarianten der Modalpartikel halt im Vor- und
Nachfeld. In A. Stefanowitsch, & K. Fischer, (Eds.), Konstruktions-grammatik
II: Von der Konstruktion zur
Grammatik (pp. 135–156). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
(2015). Temporality
and syntactic structure utterance-final intensifiers in spoken
German. In A. Deppermann, & S. Günthner, (Eds.), Temporality
in
Interaction (pp. 147–172). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2018). Valence
patterns, constructions, and interaction: Constructs with the German verb erinnern (‘remember’ /
‘remind’)”. In H. C. Boas, & A. Ziem, (Eds.), Constructional
Approaches to Syntactic Structures in
German (pp. 131–178). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Irvine, M. (2012). Mikhail
Bakhtin: Main Theories. Dialogism, Polyphony, Heteroglossia, Open Interpretation.A Student’s
Guide. Georgetown: Georgetown University. [URL]
Jackson, R. (2016). The
pragmatics of repetition, emphasis and intensification. University of Salford School of Arts and Media Salford, UK.
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics
and Poetics. Ιn T. Sebeok (Εd.), Style
in
Language. (pp. 350–377). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Jarque, C. M., & Bera, A. K. (1980). “Efficient
Tests for Normality, Homoscedasticity and Serial Independence of Regression
Residuals”. Economics
Letters, 6(3), 255–259.
Jaszczolt, K. M. (1999). Discourse,
Belief, and Intentions: Semantic defaults and propositional attitude
ascriptions. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Jensen, B. (2004). Syntax
and Semantics of Imperative Subjects. Nordlyd: The Proceedings of the 19th
Scandinavian Conference of
Linguistics, 31(1), 150–164.
Johnson, O. (2004). Information
theory and the central limit
theorem. London: Imperial College Press.
Juola, P., Mikros, G., & Vinsick, S. (2019). Correlations
and Potential Cross-Linguistic Indicators of Writing Style. Journal of Quantitative
Linguistics, 26(2), 146–171.
Justel, A., Peña, D., & Zamar, R. (1997). A
multivariate Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of goodness of fit. Statistics & Probability
Letters, 35(3), 251–259.
Kaltenböck, G. (2007). Spoken
parenthetical clauses in English. In N. Dehé, & Y. Kavalova (Eds.), Parentheticals (pp. 25–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic
Stance in English Conversation: A Description of Its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on I
think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kay, P. (2005). Argument
Structure Constructions and the Argument-Adjunct
Distinction. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical
constructions: Back to the roots [Constructional Approaches to Language
4] (pp. 71–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. (1999). Grammatical
Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y?
Construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.
Kay, P., & Michaelis, L. A. (2012). Constructional
Meaning and Compositionality. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner, (Eds.), Semantics:
An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol.
3. (pp. 2271–2296). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kerby, D. S. (2014). The
Simple Difference Formula: An Approach to Teaching Nonparametric Correlation. Comprehensive
Psychology, 3(1), 1–9. [URL].
Kilgarriff, A., Rundell, M., & Uí Dhonnchadha, E. (2006). Efficient
corpus development for lexicography: building the New Corpus for Ireland. Language
Resources and Evaluation
Journal, 40(2), 127–152.
Klein, W. (2001). ‘Time
and again’. In C. Féry, & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Audiatur
Vox Sapientiae. A Festschrift for Arnim von
Stechow (pp. 267–286). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Klemola, J. (2013). English
as a contact language in the British Isles. In D. Schreier, & M. Hundt (Eds.), English
as a contact
language (pp.75–88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koier, E. (2013). Interpreting
Particles in Dead and Living Languages: A Construction Grammar Approach to the Semantics of Dutch ergens and Ancient Greek
pou [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Leiden University, Utrecht. [URL]
König, E. (1991). The
Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London / New York: Routledge.
Krawczak, K., Fabiszak, M., & Hilpert, M. (2016). A
corpus-based, cross-linguistic approach to mental predicates and their complementation: Performativity and descriptivity
vis-à-vis boundedness and picturability. Folia
Linguistica, 50(2), 475–506.
Kristiansen, G., Achard, M., Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (Eds.). (2008). Cognitive
Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kuosmanen, T. (2004). “Efficient
diversification according to stochastic dominance criteria”. Management
Science, 50(10),1390–1406.
Ladd, B. (1980). The
Structure of Intonational Meaning: Evidence from
English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1971). Presupposition
and relative well-formedness. In D. D. Steinberg, & L. A. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics.
An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and
Psychology (pp.329–340). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information
structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse
referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lamiroy, B., & Swiggers, P. (1991). Imperatives
as discourse signals. In S. Fleischman, & L. R. Waugh (Εds.), Discourse-Pragmatics
and the Verb: The Evidence from
Romance (pp. 121–146). London/New York: Routledge.
(2007). Constructing
the Meanings of Personal Pronouns. In G. Radden, K. M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects
of Meaning
Construction (pp. 171–187). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia
of Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE publications.
Lee, Y. (1995). Scales
and alternatives: disjunction, exhaustivity, and emphatic particles [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. University of Texas, Austin.
Leech, G. (1992). Corpora
and theories of linguistic performance. In J. Startvik (Ed.), Directions
in corpus
linguistics (pp. 105–122). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lenk, E. (1998). Making
Discourse Coherent: Functions of Discourse Markers in Spoken
English. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching
dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical
perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2003). Dialogical
tensions: on Rommetveitian themes of minds, meanings, monologues and languages. Mind,
Culture &
Activity, 10(3), 219–229.
(2009a). Rethinking
Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human
Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
(2009b). Grammatical
constructions in dialogue. In A. Bergs, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts
and
Constructions (pp. 97–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Liontas, J. I. (2003). Killing
two birds with one stone: Understanding Spanish VP idioms in and out of
context. Hispania, 86(2), 289–301.
(2015). Straight
from the Horse’s Mouth: Idiomaticity Revisited. In R. Heredia, & A. Cieślicka (Eds.), Bilingual
Figurative Language
Processing (pp. 301–340). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Louw, B. (1993). ‘Irony
in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic
prosodies’. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text
and Technology: In Honour of John
Sinclair (pp. 157–176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2000). ‘Contextual
prosodic theory: Bringing semantic prosodies to life’. In C. Heffer, H. Sauntson, & G. Fox (Eds.), Words
in context: A tribute to John Sinclair on his
retirement (pp. 48–94). Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K. H. & Torrent, T. T. (Eds.). (2018). Constructicography:
Constructicon Development across
Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lynne Murphy, M. (2003). Semantic
relations and the lexicon: antonymy, synonymy, and other
paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(1982). Deixis
and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In R. J. Jarvella, & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech,
place, and action: Studies in deixis and related
topics (pp. 101–124). Chichester/New York: John Wiley.
Makkonen-Craig, H. (2014). Aspects
of dialogicity: Exploring dynamic interrelations in written
discourse. In A. M. Karlsson, & H. Makkonen-Craig (Eds.), Analysing
text AND talk, FUMS Rapport
nr 233 (pp. 99–120). Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. [URL]
Mann, W. C., & Taboada, M. (2010). “RST
definitions”, available at: [URL]
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1987). Rhetorical
structure theory: A theory of text organization. In L. Polanyi (Ed.), The
Structure of
Discourse. Norwood/NJ: Ablex.
Martin Zorraquino, M. A., & Portolés Lázaro, J. (1999). Los
marcadores del discurso. In Ι. Bosque, & V. Demonte, (Eds.) Gramática
descriptiva de la lengua
española (pp. 4050–4213). Madrid: Real Academia Española.
Massey, F. J. (1951). The
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Goodness of Fit, Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 46(253), 68–78.
McAllister-Spooner, S. M. (2008). User
perceptions of dialogic public relations tactics via the Internet. Public Relations
Journal, 2(1),1–18.
McEnery, T., & Gabrielatos, C. (2006). English
corpus linguistics. In B. Aarts, & A. McMahon (Eds.), The
Handbook of English
Linguistics (pp. 33–71). Oxford: Blackwell.
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus
Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press.
McEnery, A., Xiao, R. Z., & Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-based
Language Studies: an Advanced Resource
Book. London: Routledge.
Meyer, C. (2014). Corpus-based
and corpus-driven approaches to linguistic analysis: One and the
same? In I. Taavitsainen, M. Kytö, C. Claridge, & J. Smith (Eds.), Developments
in English: Expanding Electronic
Evidence (pp. 14–28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Michaelis, L. A. (2017). Meanings
of Constructions. Oxford Online Research Encyclopedia of
Linguistics.
Michell, J. (1997). Quantitative
science and the definition of measurement in psychology. British Journal of
Psychology, 88(3), 355–383.
Mikros, G. (2002). Quantitative
parameters in corpus design: Estimating the optimum text-size in Modern Greek
language. In M. G. Rodrígues, & C. P. S. Araujo (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 3rd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2002), Las Palmas, Canary Islands — Spain
Vol.
3 (pp. 834–838). ELRA. [URL]
(2017). The
final –n rule. A quantitative study [Workshop
Presentation]. “Linguistic Errors and their evaluation in language
teaching”, Thessaloniki, Greece.
(2003). On
the Role of the Speaker in Language Change. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Motivations
for Language
Change (pp. 143–157). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moran, M. D. (2003). Arguments
for rejecting sequential Bonferroni in ecological
studies. OIKOS, 100(2), 403–40.
Moravcsik, E. (1978). Reduplicative
constructions. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals
of Human Language, vol. 3: Word
Structure (pp. 297–334). Stanford: Stanford University Press. [URL]
Mordkoff, T., (2000,
2011, 2016). The Assumptions of Normality [Class
Handout]. Department of Psychological and Bran Studies, Course: Quantitative Methods in
Psychology. University of Iowa: Iowa. BA. [URL]
Mulder, J. & Thompson, S. A. (2008). The
grammaticization of but as a final particle in English
conversation. In R. Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic
Studies of Clause Combining: The multifunctionality of
conjunctions (pp. 179–204). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Myachykov, A. (2007). Perception,
Conceptualization, and Syntax in Sentence Production [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. University of Glasgow.
Myachykov, A., Posner, M. I., & Tomlin, R. S. (2007). A
parallel interface for language and cognition: Theory, method, and experimental
evidence. The Linguistic
Review, 24(4), 457–475.
Newby, D. (2015). The
role of theory in pedagogical grammar: A Cognitive + Communicative approach. Eurasian
Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 1(2), 13–34.
Nikiforidou, K. (2015). Grammatical
constructions and cross-text generalizations: Empathetic narration as genre. Constructions
and
Frames, 7(2), 181–217.
(2017, July). Grammatical
variability and the grammar of genre: Conventionality and functional motivation in ‘stage
directions’. 15th International Pragmatics Conference, Belfast,
Northern Ireland.
(2021). Grammatical
variability and the grammar of genre: Constructions, conventionality, and motivation in ‘stage
directions’. Journal of
Pragmatics, 173, 189–199.
Nikiforidou, K. & Fischer, K. (2015). On
the interaction of constructions with register and genre. Constructions and
Frames, 7(2), 137–147.
Nikiforidou, K., Marmaridou, S., & Mikros, G. (2014). What’s
in a dialogic construction? A constructional approach to polysemy and the grammar of
challenge. Cognitive
Linguistics, 25(4), 655–699.
Nir, B., & Berman, R. A. (2010). Complex
syntax as a window on contrastive rhetoric. Journal of
Pragmatics, 42, 744–765.
Noh, E -J. (2000). Metarepresentation: A relevance
Theory Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Noveck, I. A., Chierchia, G., Chevaux, F., Guelminger, R., & Sylvestre, E. (2002). Linguistic-pragmatic
factors in interpreting disjunctions. Thinking and
Reasoning, 8(4), 297–326.
Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic
Modality, Language and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-Pragmatic
Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ochs, E. (1990). Cultural
universals in the acquisition of language: Keynote address. Papers and Reports on Child
Language
Development, 29, 1–19.
(1996). Linguistic
resources for socializing humanity. In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Studies
in the social and cultural foundations of language, No17. Rethinking linguistic
relativity (pp. 407–437). New York: Cambridge University Press.
O’Grady, G. (2016). Given/New.
What do the terms refer to? A first (small) step. English Text
Construction, 9(1), 9–32.
Osburn, H. G. (2000). Coefficient
alpha and related internal consistency reliability coefficients. Psychological
Methods, 5(3), 343–355.
Östman, J. -O. (1991). “On the Language-Internal
Interaction of Prosody and Pragmatic Particles.” In J. Verschueren (Ed.), Levels
of Linguistic
Adaptation (pp. 203–221). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(1995). “Pragmatic Particles
Twenty Years after.” In B. Wårvik, S. -K. Tanskanen, & R. Hiltunen (Eds.), Organization
in Discourse. Proceedings from the Turku
Conference 14 (pp.95–108). Turku, Finland: University of Turku.
Östman, J. O. (2005). Construction
discourse: A prolegomenon. In J. O. Östman, & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction
grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical
extensions (pp. 121–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Östman, J. O. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Dialects,
discourse and Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Construction
Grammar (pp. 476–490). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Owen Van Horne, A. J., & Lin, S. (2011). Cognitive
state verbs and complement clauses in children with SLI and their typically developing
peers. Clinical Linguistics &
Phonetics, 25(10), 881–898.
Papafragou, A., & Li, P. (2001). Evidential
morphology and theory of mind. Proceedings from the 26th Annual Boston University
Conference on Language
Development (pp. 510–520). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Papafragou, A., Li, P., Choi, Y., & Han, C. (2007). Evidentiality
in language and
cognition. Cognition, 103(2), 253–299.
Partington, A. (1998). Patterns
and Meanings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2004). “Utterly
Content in Each Other’s Company”: Semantic Prosody and Semantic Preference. International
Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, 9(1), 131–156.
Pascual, E. (2002). Imaginary
Trialogues: Conceptual Blending and Fictive Interaction in Criminal
Courts. Utrecht: LOT.
(2014). Fictive
Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language, and
Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pascual, E. & Sandler, S. (2016). Fictive
interaction and the conversation frame: An overview. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The
Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive
Interaction (pp. 3–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Perek, F. (2015). Argument
Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar: Experimental and Corpus-based
Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Platzack, C., & Rosengren, I. (1998). ‘On
the subject of imperatives: A minimalist account of the imperative clause’. The Journal of
Comparative
Linguistics, 1(3), 177–224.
Politzer, G., & Noveck, I. A. (1991). Are
conjunction rule violations the result of conversational rule violations? Journal of
Psycholinguistic
Research, 20(2), 83–103.
Potsdam, E. (1996). Syntactic
issues in English imperatives [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. University of California at Santa Cruz.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A
comprehensive Grammar of the English
Language. London: Longman.
Ranger, G. (1998). Les
constructions concessives en anglais: une approche énonciative. Paris -Gap: Orphys.
Rezanova, Z., & Kogut, S. (2015). Types
of Discourse Markers: their Ethnocultural Diversity in Scientific Text. Procedia — Social
and Behavioral
Sciences, 215, 266–272.
Rhee, S. (2011). Nominalization
and stance marking in Korean. In F. Ha Yap, K. Grunow-Hårsta, & J. Wrona (Eds.), Nominalization
in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives, Vol. 2: Korean, Japanese and Austronesian
Languages (pp. 393–422). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2016). On
the emergence of the stance-marking function of English adverbs: A case of
intensifiers. Linguistic
Research, 33(3), 395–436.
Ritter, N. (2010, February). Understanding
a widely misunderstood statistic: Cronbach’s alpha [Paper
presentation]. Southwestern Educational Research Association (SERA) Conference
2010, New Orleans, LA (ED526237). [URL]
Romero-Trillo, J. (2015). Understanding
vagueness: a prosodic analysis of endocentric and exocentric general extenders in English
conversation. Journal of
Pragmatics, 86, 54–62.
Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1989). Statistical
procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science. American
Psychologist, 44(10), 1276–1284.
Rossi, A. (2011). Lexical
reduplication and affective contents: A pragmatic and experimental perspective. Belgian
Journal of
Linguistics, 25(1), 148–175.
Ruppenhofer, J., & Michaelis, L. A. (2010). A
constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and
Frames, 2(2), 158–184.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A
simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for
conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence
Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation
Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., Ochs, E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Introduction. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, & S. Thomson (Eds.), Interaction
and
grammar (pp. 1–52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffer, S. (1990). The
mode-of-presentation problem. In C. A. Anderson, & J. Owens (Eds.), Propositional
Attitudes: The Role of Content in Logic, Language, and
Mind (pp. 249–268). Stanford: CSLI Press.
Schmid, H. J. (2007). Entrenchment,
salience and basic levels. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of cognitive
linguistics (pp. 117–138). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2017). A
framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological
foundations. In H. J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment
and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic
Knowledge (pp. 9–36). Boston: APA & De Gruyter.
Schmidt, Z. (2007). “Negativity
Bias in Language: A Cognitive-Affective Model of Emotive Intensifiers”. Cognitive
Linguistics, 18(3), 417–443.
Schourup, L. (1985). Common
Discourse Particles in English conversation: ‘like’, ‘well’,
‘y’know’. NewYork: Garland.
Schwenter, S. A. (2000). Viewpoints
and polysemy: Linking adversative and causal meanings of discourse
markers. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause
— Condition — Concession — Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse
Perspectives (pp. 257–281). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2008, July 17). Dialogicity
and the emergence of sentential negation in (Brazilian) Portuguese [Conference
presentation]. 4th New Reflections on Grammaticalization, University of
Leuven, Belgium.
Schwenter, S. A., & Traugott, E. C. (2000). Invoking
scalarity: The development of in fact. Journal of Historical
Pragmatics, 1(1), 7–25.
Schwenter, S. A., & Waltereit, R. (2010). Presupposition
Accommodation and Language Change. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification,
Intersubjectification and
Grammaticalization (pp. 75–102). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Selting, M. (1996). On
the interplay of syntax and prosody in the constitution of turn-constructional units and turns in
conversation. Pragmatics, 6(3), 357–388.
(1998). TCUs
and TRPs: The construction of “units” in conversational talk. Interaction and Linguistic
Structures, 4, 1–48.
(2001). “Fragments
of units as deviant cases of unit production in conversational
talk”. In M. Selting, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies
in Interactional
Linguistics (pp. 229–258). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2005). “Syntax
and prosody as methods for the construction and identification of turn-constructional units in
conversation”. In A. Hakulinen, & M. Selting, (Eds.), Syntax
and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in
Talk-in-Interaction (pp. 17–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2007). “Lists
as Embedded Structures and the Prosody of List Construction as an Interactional
Resource”. Journal of
Pragmatics, 39(3), 483–526.
Shaw, A. (2010). Shall
we sing a song for you? The good, the bad and the downright offensive — Britain’s favourite football
chants. London: John Blake.
Shorack, G. R., & Wellner, J. A. (1986). Empirical
processes with applications to statistics of Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics: Probability and
Mathematical Statistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Simaki, V., Paradis, C., Skeppstedt, M., Sahlgren, M., Kucher, K., & Kerren, A. (2020). Annotating
speaker stance in discourse: the Brexit blog corpus. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic
Theory, 16(2), 215–248.
Simons, M. (2007). Observations
on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua: International review of
general
linguistics, 117(6), 1034–1056.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A. -M. (2000). The functions of I think
in political discourse. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 10(1), 41–63.
Sinclair, J. (1987). The
nature of the evidence. In J. Sinclair (Ed.), Looking
Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical
Computing (pp. 150–159). London: Collins.
(1998). Large
corpus research and foreign language teaching. In R. de Beaugrande, M. Grosman, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Language
Policy and Language Education in Emerging
Nations (pp. 79–86). London: Ablex.
(2003). Corpora
for lexicography. In P. Van Sterkenberg (Ed.), A
practical guide to lexicography: Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice, vol.
6 (pp.167–178), Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Slaughter, V., Peterson, C. C., & Carpenter, M. (2008). Maternal
talk about mental states and the emergence of joint visual
attention. Infancy, 13(6), 640–659.
Smirnova, E. (2021). Horizontal
links within and between paradigms: The constructional network of reported directives in
German. In M. Hilpert, B. Cappelle, & I. Depraetere (Eds.), Modality
and Diachronic Construction
Grammar (pp. 185–218). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Snider, T. (2017). Anaphoric
reference to propositions [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. Cornell University.
Sojda, S. (2022). The
Intensifying Function of Reduplication in Contemporary Polish and Slovak. Journal of
Linguistics /Jazykovedný
casopis, 73(2), 161–174.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance:
Communication and Cognition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell (Original work published
1986)
Sprent, P., & Smeeton, N. C. (2001). Applied
Nonparametric Statistical Methods (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Steen, G. J. (2005). Basic
discourse acts: Towards a psychological theory of discourse
segmentation. In F. R. de Mendoza Ibáňez, & M. S. Peňa Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive
linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary
interaction (pp. 283–312). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). The
English imperative: A construction-based approach [Paper
presentation]. Workshop on Form and function of sentence types at the DGFS Jahrestagung
2003, Munich.
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions:
Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of
Corpus
Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243.
Strauss, S., & Xiang, X. (2009). Discourse
particles: Where cognition and interaction intersect-The case of final particle ey in Shishan dialect (Hainan Island, P.R.
China). Journal of
Pragmatics, 41(7), 1287–1312.
Stubbs, M. (1986). A
matter of prolonged field work: Notes towards a modal grammar of English. Applied
Linguistics, 7(1), 1–25.
(1995). Collocations
and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of
Language, 2(1), 1–33.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From
Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic
Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taber, K. S. (2018). The
Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science
Education. Research in Science
Education, 48(6), 1273–1296.
Taboada, M., & Hadic Zabala, L. (2008). Deciding
on units of analysis within Centering Theory. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic
Theory, 4(1), 63–108.
Takahashi, H. (2004). The
English Imperative: A Cognitive and Functional Analysis. [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. Hokkaido University.
(2011). The
imperative in English: The Six-Parameter Approach to Analyzing its Force. Journal of the
graduate school of
letters, 6, 1–13. [URL]
(2012). A
cognitive linguistic analysis of the English imperative: with special reference to Japanese
imperative’. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Talmy, L. (1996). Fictive
motion in language and “ception.” In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language
and
space (pp. 211–276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(2000). Toward
a cognitive semantics: Vol. I. Conceptual structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making
sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International journal of medical
education, 2, 53–55.
Thompson, B. (1992). Two
and one-half decades of leadership in measurement and evaluation. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 70(3), 434–438.
Thompson, S. A. (2019). Understanding
‘clause’ as an emergent ‘unit’ in everyday conversation Studies in
Language, 43(2), 254–280.
Thompson, S. A. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2005). The
clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse
Studies 7, (4–5), 481–505.
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar
in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive
Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tognini-Bonelli, T. (2001). Corpus
Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tomlin, R. S. (1995). Focal
Attention, Voice, and Word Order. In P. Downing, & M. Noonan (Εds.), Word
Order in
Discourse (pp. 517–552). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(1997). Mapping
Conceptual Representations into Linguistic Representations: The Role of Attention in
Grammar. In J. Nuyts & E. Pederson (Eds.), Language
and
Conceptualization (pp. 162–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Torres-Martínez, S. (2015). A
constructionist approach to the teaching of phrasal verbs. English
Today, 31(3), 46–58.
(2016). Working
out multiword verbs within an Applied Cognitive Construction Grammar framework. European
Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 4(2), 1–32.
Traugott, E. C. (1999). The
rhetoric of counter-expectation in semantic change: a study in
subjectification. In A. Blank et al. (Eds.), Historical
Semantics and
Cognition (pp. 177–196). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2005). Lexicalization
and grammaticalization. In A. Cruse, F. Hundsnurscher, M. Job, & P. R. Lutzeier (Eds.), Lexikologie/-Lexicology
Vol.
2 (pp. 1702–1712). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
(2006). The
semantic development of scalar focus modifiers. In A. van Kemenade, & B. Los (Eds.), Handbook
on the History of
English (pp. 335–359). Oxford: Blackwell.
(2007). Discussion
Article: Discourse markers, modal particles and contrastive analysis, synchronic and
diachronic. Catalan Journal of
Linguistics, 6, 139–157.
(2008). ‘All
that he endeavoured to prove was…’: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogic
contexts”. In C. Robin, & R. Kempson (Eds.), Language
in Flux: Dialogue Coordination, Language Variation, Change and
Evolution (pp.143–177). London: Kings College Publications.
(2009). “Lexicalization
and grammaticalization”, “Subjectification, intersubjectification, and
grammaticalization”, Studies in Historical
Linguistics, 2, 241–271.
(2010). Dialogic
contexts as motivations for syntactic change. In R. A. Cloutier, A. -M. Hamilton-Brehm, & W. Kretzschmar (Eds.), Variation
and Change in English Grammar and
Lexicon (pp.11–27). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Traugott, E. (2018). Rethinking
the Role of Invited Inferencing in Change from the Perspective of Interactional Texts. Open
Linguistics, 4(1), 19–34.
Traugott, E. C. (2022). Discourse
Structuring Markers in English: A historical constructionalist perspective on
pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization
and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Trotta, J. (2000). Wh-Clauses
in English: Aspects of Theory and Description. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: Rodopi.
Ungerer, T. (2023). A
gradient notion of constructionhood. Constructions, Special Issue “35 Years of
Constructions”, 15(15), 1–20.
Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S. (2023). Constructionist
Approaches: Past, Present,
Future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Bogaert, J. (2006). I
Guess, I Suppose and I Believe as Pragmatic Markers: Grammaticalization and Functions. BELL
(Belgian Essays on Language and
Literature), 4, 129–149.
(2009). The
Grammar of Complement-Taking Mental Predicate Constructions in Present-Day Spoken British
English. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Gent.
(2010). A
constructional taxonomy of I think and related expressions: accounting for the variability of complement-taking mental
predicates. English Language and
Linguistics, 14(3), 399–427.
van der Auwera, J., & Devos, M. (2012). Irealis
in positive imperatives and prohibitives. Language
Sciences, 34(2), 171–183.
van der Wouden, T., & Foolen, A. (2015). Dutch
particles in the right periphery. In S. Hancil, A. Haselow, & M. Post (Eds.), Final
Particles (pp. 221–247). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [URL].
Van de Velde, F. (2014). 6.
Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending
the Scope of Construction
Grammar (pp. 141–180). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
van Olmen, D., & Heinold, S. (2017). Imperatives
and directive strategies from a functional-typological perspective: an
introduction. In D. van Olmen, & S. Heinold (Eds.), Imperatives
and Directive Strategies. Studies in Language Companion Series, Vol.
184 (pp. 1–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vázquez Rozas, V. (2006). Gustar-type
verbs. In J. C. Clements, & J. Yoon (Eds.), Functional
Approaches to Spanish Syntax. Lexical semantics, discourse and
transitivity (pp. 80–114). Hampshire /New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Verhoeven, E. (2010). Agentivity
and stativity in experiencer verbs: Implications for a typology of verb classes. Linguistic
Typology, 14(2–3), 213–251.
Vickson, R. G. (1975). “Stochastic
Dominance Tests for Decreasing Absolute Risk Aversion. I. Discrete Random
Variables”. Management
Science, 21(12), 1438–1446.
(1977). “Stochastic
Dominance Tests for Decreasing Absolute Risk Aversion. II. General Random
Variables”. Management
Science, 23(5), 478–489.
Vološinov, V. N. (1986). Marxism
and the philosophy of language (L. Matejka, & I. R. Titunik, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work
published 1929).
von Fintel, K. & Iatridou, S. (2017). A
modest proposal for the meaning of imperatives. In A. Arregui, M. L. Rivero, & A. Salanova (Eds.), Modality
across syntactic
categories (pp. 288–319). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought
and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Eds.
& Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934).
Wainer, H. & Robinson, D. H. (2003). Shaping
up the practice of null hypothesis significance testing. Educational
Researcher, 32(7), 22–30.
Waltereit, R. (2002). Imperatives,
interruption in conversation, and the rise of discourse markers: A study of Italian
guarda. Linguistics, 40(5), 987–1010.
Waltereit, R., & Detges, U. (2007). “Different
functions, different histories. Modal particles and discourse markers from a diachronic point of
view”. Catalan Journal of
Linguistics, 6, 61–80.
Weber, M., Leemis, L., & Kincaid, R. (2006). Minimum
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test statistic parameter estimates. Journal of Statistical Computation
and
Simulation, 76(3), 195–206.
Weir, A. (2013). The
syntax of imperatives in Scots. In J. Cruickshank, & R. Millar (Eds.), After
the Storm: Papers from the Forum for Research on the Languages of Scotland and Ulster triennial
meeting (pp. 261–285). Aberdeen: Aberdeen University.
(2017). Away
you to bed: Postverbal imperative subjects from Scotland to
Belfast. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
White, E. J. (2009). A
Bakhtinian homecoming: operationalising Bakhtin in NZ ECE setting. Journal of Early
Childhood
Research, 7(3), 299–323.
Widdowson, H. G. (2000). ‘On
the limitations of linguistics applied.’ Applied
Linguistics, 21(1), 3–25.
Willett, T. (1988). A
cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in
Language, 12(1), 51–97.
Wulff, S., Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2007). Brutal
Brits and persuasive Americans: variety-specific meaning construction in the
into-causative. In G. Radden, K. -M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects
of meaning construction in lexicon and
grammar (pp. 265–81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Xiao, R. (2009). Using
Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies. International Academic
Developments, 29(5), 3–4.
Xiao, R., & McEnery, T. (2006). Collocation,
Semantic Prosody, and Near Synonymy: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Applied
Linguistics, 27(1), 103–129.