Alm-Arvius, C.
(1993) The English verb “see”: A study in multiple meaning. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Göteborg.Google Scholar
Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, H.
(1989) Les verbes de perception : étude sémantique. In D. Kremer (Ed.), Actes du XVIIIe Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes. (pp. 282–294). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bolly, C.
(2009) Constructionalisation et structure informationnelle. Quand la grammaticalisation ne suffit pas pour expliquer tu vois, Linx, 61 1, 103–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Pragmaticalisation du marqueur discursif « tu vois ». De la perception à l’évidence et de l’évidence au discours. In F. Neveu, F. V. Muni-Toké, J. Durand, T. Klingler, L. Mondada & S. Prévost (Eds.) Proceedings of the Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française (CMLF 2010, New Orleans, United States) (pp. 673–693). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J.
(2001) From matrix clause to pragmatic marker: The history of look-forms. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2 (2), 177–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L.
(2006) Pathways in the Development of Pragmatic Markers in English. In The Handbook of the History of English (pp. 306–334). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J.
(2008) The Comment Clause in English. Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broth, M., Keevallik, L.
(2020) Multimodal interaktionsanalys: att studera mänskligt samspel. In M. Broth & L. Keevallik (Eds.), Multimodal interaktionsanalys (pp. 19–40). Lund: Studentlitteratur AB.Google Scholar
Combettes, B.
(1998) Les constructions détachées en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2021) Language over time: Some old and new uses of OKAY in American English. Interactional Linguistics, 1 (1), 33–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A.
(2011) The Study of Formulations as a Key to an Interactional Semantics. Human Studies, 34 (2), 115–128. [URL]. DOI logo
Deppermann, A. & Schmidt, A.
(2021) How Shared Meanings and Uses Emerge Over an Interactional History: Wabi Sabi in a Series of Theater Rehearsals. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54 (2), 203–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DuBois, J.
(2007) The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erman, B.
(1987) Pragmatic expressions in English: a study of you know, you see, and I mean in face-to-face conversation. Stockholm Studies in English 69 1. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Evans, N. & Wilkins, D.
(2000) In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76 (3), 546–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fagard, B.
Hopper, P.
(1987) Emergent Grammar. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P., Traugott, E. C.
(2003) Grammaticalization (2 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, W., Vom Lehn, D.
(2020) Seeing as accountable action: The interactional accomplishment of sensorial work, Current Sociology, 68 (1), 77–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C.
(1994) Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96 (3), 606–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
2000Practices of Seeing: Visual Analysis – An Ethnomethodological Approach, In T. van Leeuwen & J. Carey (Eds.), Handbook of Visual Analysis (pp. 157–182). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H.
(1996) Seeing as a Situated Activity: Formulating Planes. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.) Cognition and Communication at Work (pp. 61–95) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, F. & Tutin, A.
(2010) Evidential markers in French scientific writing: The case of the French verb “voir”. In E. Smirnova & G. Diewald (Eds.), Evidentiality in European Languages (pp. 279–308). Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilmisdottir, H. & Wide, C.
(2000) Sko – en mångfunktionell diskurspartikel i isländskt ungdomsspråk. In U.-B. Kotsinas, A.-B. Stenström & E.-M. Drange (Eds.) Ungdom, språk och identitet: Rapport fra et nettverksmøte (pp. 101–121). (Nord 1999:30), Nordic Council of Ministers Editors.Google Scholar
Hockey, J., Allen-Collinson, J.
(2006) Seeing the way: Visual sociology and the distance runner’s perspective. Visual studies 21 (1), 70–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
(2008) Vision metaphors for the intellect: Are they really cross-linguistic? Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies 30 (1), 15–33.Google Scholar
(2019) Perception metaphors in cognitive linguistics. Scope, motivation and lexicalization. In L. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphor (pp. 43–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, G., López-Couso, M. J. & Méndez-Naya, B.
(2020) The dynamics of stance constructions. Language Sciences, 82 1, 101330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, L.
(2003) From Interaction to Grammar: Estonian Finite Verb Forms in Conversation. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala: Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 34.Google Scholar
(2008) Internal development and borrowing of pragmatic particles: the Estonian vaata/vat ‘look’, näed ‘you see’ and vot . Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 30/31 1, 23–54.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. H.
(2019) Evidential vindication in next turn: Using the retrospective “See?” in conversation. In L. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphor (pp. 253–274). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, R. & Suzuki, R.
Levinson, S. C. & Majid, A.
(2014) Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language 29 1, 407–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J.
(2001) Inner and outer syntax of constructions: the case of the x och x construction in Swedish. (Paper presented in the panel on Pragmatic aspects of frame semantics and construction grammar, 7th International Pragmatics Conference, Budapest July 9–14, 2000). Preliminary version published at project site Grammar in Conversation: a Study of Swedish.
Lindström, J. & Karlsson, S.
(2005) Verb-first constructions as a syntactic and functional resource in (spoken) Swedish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 28 (1), 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J. & Wide, C.
(2005) Tracing the origins of a set of discourse particles: Swedish particles of the type you know . Journal of historical pragmatics 6 (2), 211–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Y., Pekarek Doehler, S., Lindström, J. & Leelo Keevallik, L.
Mondada, L.
(2003) Working with video: how surgeons produce video records of their actions. Visual Studies, 18 (1), 58–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Organisation multimodale de la parole-en-interaction : pratiques incarnées d’introduction des référents. Langue Française 175 (3), 129–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. [URL]
Nevile, M.
(2013) Collaboration in crisis: pursuing perception through multiple descriptions (how friendly vehicles became damn rocket launchers). In A. De Rycker, Z. Mohd Don (Eds.), Discourse and Crisis: Critical Perspectives (159–183). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nishizaka, A.
(2000) Seeing What One Sees: Perception, Emotion, and Activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity 7 (1–2), 105–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) The perceived body and embodied vision in interaction. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 24 (2), 110–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., De Stefany, E. & Horlacher, A.-S.
Polak-Yitzhaki, H., Amon, M., Keevallik, L. & Maschler, Y.
(2022) Verbs of seeing as evidentials: Hebrew ’ata ro’e’ and Estonian näed ’YOU SEE’, [Presented Paper] Knowint22: Sources of knowledge in talk-in-interaction , 07–09.02.2022 Lugano.
San Roque, L., Kendrick, K. H., Norcliffe, E., Brown, P., Defina, R., Dirksmeyer, T., Dingemanse, M., Enfield, N. J., Floyd, S., Hammond, J., Rossi, G., Tufvesson, S., van Putten, S. & Majid, A.
(2015) Vision verbs dominate in conversation across cultures, but the ranking of non-visual verbs varies. Cognitive Linguistics 26 1, 31–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Roque, L., Kendrick, K. H., Norcliffe, E. & Majid, E.
(2018) Universal meaning extensions of perception verbs are grounded in interaction. Cognitive Linguistics 29 (3), 371–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, E.-L. & Hakulinen, A.
(1992) Finnish kato: from verb to particle. Journal of Pragmatics 18 1, 527–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J.
(2006) Coordinating gesture, talk, and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39 (4), 377–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) “Look”-prefaced turns in first and second position: Launching, interceding and redirecting action. Discourse Studies 9 (3), 387–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siitonen, P., Rauniomaa, M. & Keisanen, T.
(2019)  Kato. Hulluna puolukoita. Kato vuorovaikutuksen resurssina luontoilussa. Virittäjä 123 (4), 518–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021) Language and the Moving Body: Directive Actions With the Finnish kato “look” in Nature-Related Activities. Frontiers in Psychology 12 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skogmyr Marian, K.
in press). Longitudinal change in linguistic resources for interaction: The case of tu vois (‘you see’) in L2 French. Interactional Linguistics.
Sweetser, E.
(1990) From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A. & Mulac, A.
(1991) A Quantitative Perspective on the Grammaticization of Epistemic Parentheticals in English. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. 21, (pp. 313–329). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
(2010) (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: a reassessment. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens (Eds.) Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (pp. 29–74), Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Rethinking the Role of Invited Inferencing in Change from the Perspective of Interactional Texts. Open Linguistics, 4 (1), 19–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuncer, S. & Haddington, P.
(2019) Looking at and seeing objects: Instructed vision and collaboration in the laboratory. Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 20 1, 435–360.Google Scholar
Vaiss, N.
(2020) Verbide transitiivsuse kontiinumist eesti keeles. (On the continuum of transitivity of Estonian verbs). Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat 66 1, 344–386.Google Scholar
Viberg, Å.
(1983) The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics, 21 1, 123–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, R.
(2002) Imperatives, interruption in conversation, and the rise of discourse markers: A study of Italian guarda . Linguistics 40 (5), 987–1010. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willems, D. & Blanche-Benveniste, C.
(2010) Verbes ‘faibles’ et verbes à valeur épistémique en français parlé : il me semble, il paraît, j’ai l’impression, on dirait, je dirais . In M. Iliescu, H. M. Siller-Runggaldier & P. Danler (Éds.), Actes du XXVe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes, IV (pp. 565–579). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitt, R.
(2010) Evidentiality, polysemy, and the verbs of perception in English and German. In G. Diewald & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages (pp. 249–278). Berlin-New York: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) (Inter)Subjectivity and evidential perception verbs in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics 43 1, 347–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar