Article published in:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 17:2 (2017) ► pp. 157182
References

References

Aijmer, K. and Simon-Vandenbergen, A. -M.
2003The Discourse Particle well and its Equivalents in Swedish and Dutch. Linguistics 41:1123–1161. Crossref link
Algeo, J.
1988The Tag Question in British English: It’s Different, i’n’it? English World-Wide 9(2):171–191. Crossref link
1990 It’s a Myth, innit? Politeness and the English Tag Question. In The State of the Language. C. B. Ricks and L. Michaels (eds), 443–450. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Axelsson, K.
2011Tag Questions in Fiction Dialogue. PhD Thesis, University of Gothenburg.
2014Confirmation-Demanding Tag Questions in Fiction Dialogue. In Subjectivity and Epistemicity: Corpus, Discourse, and Literary Approaches to Stance. D. Glynn and M. Sjölin (eds), 165–185. Lund: Lund University.
Bazzanella, C. and Morra, L.
2000Discourse Markers and the Indeterminacy of Translation. In Argomenti per una Linguistica della Traduzione. Notes pour une Linguistique de la Traduction. On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. I. Korzen and C. Marello (eds), 149–157. Alessandria: Edizione dell’ Orso.
[ p. 180 ]
Bolden, G. B.
2006Little Words That Matter: Discourse Markers “So” and “Oh” and the Doing of Other‐Attentiveness in Social Interaction. Journal of Communication 56(4):661–688. Crossref link
Buysse, L.
2017English So and Dutch Dus in a Parallel Corpus: An Investigation into their Mutual Translatability. In Contrastive Analysis of Discourse-Pragmatic Aspects of Linguistic Genres (Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 5), K. Aijmer and D. Lewis (eds), 33–61. Cham: Springer. Crossref link
Caspers, J. and van der Wouden, T.
2010Modal Particles in Dutch as a Second Language. Evidence from a Perception Experiment. Linguistik Online 44(4). Available at https://​bop​.unibe​.ch​/linguistik​-online​/article​/view​/407​/645 [last accessed 9 June 2016].
Columbus, G.
2010A Comparative Analysis of Invariant Tags in Three Varieties of English. English World-Wide 31(3):288–310. Crossref link
Culicover, P. W.
1992English Tag Questions in Universal Grammar. Lingua 88(3–4):193–226. Crossref link
Foolen, A.
2006Polysemy Patterns in Contrast: The Case of Dutch toch and German doch . In Pragmatic Markers in Contrast, K. Aijmer and A. -M. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds), 59–72. Oxford/Amsterdam: Elsevier.
2010Partikels volgen de schijf van vijf. Internationale Neerlandistiek 48:41–51. Crossref link
Gómez González, M. A.
2014Canonical Tag Questions in English, Spanish and Portuguese. A Discourse-Functional Study. Languages in Contrast 14(1):93–126. Crossref link
Hogeweg, L., Ramachers, S. and Wottrich, V.
2011 Doch, toch and wel on the Table. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 2011, R. Nouwen and M. Elenbaas (eds), 50–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Holmes, J.
1982The Functions of Question Tags. English Language Research Journal 3:40–65.
Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K.
2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Johansson, S.
2006How Well Can well Be Translated? On the English Discourse Particle well and its Correspondences in Norwegian and German. In Pragmatic markers in contrast, K. Aijmer and A. -M. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds), 115–137. Oxford/Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kimps, D.
2007Declarative Constant Polarity Tag Questions: A Data-Driven Analysis of their Form, Meaning and Attitudinal Uses. Journal of Pragmatics 39(2):270–291. Crossref link
Kimps, D., Davidse, K. and Cornillie, B.
2014A Speech Function Analysis of Tag Questions in British English Spontaneous Dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 66(1):64–85. Crossref link
Kirsner, R. S.
2003On the Interaction of the Dutch Pragmatic Particles hoor and with the Imperative and Infinitivus Pro Imperativo. In Usage-Based Approaches to Dutch: Lexicon, Grammar, Discourse, A. Verhagen and J. van de Weijer (eds), 59–96. Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics LOT.
Kirsner, R. S. and van Heuven, V. J.
1996Boundary tones and the semantics of the Dutch final particles hè, hoor, zeg and joh . In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996, den Dikken, M. and Cremers, C. (eds), 133–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Leech, G. and Short, M.
2007Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose (2nd edition). Harlow: Pearson.
Palacios Martínez, I.
2015Variation, Development and Pragmatic Uses of Innit in the Language of British Adults and Teenagers. English Language and Linguistics 19(3):383–405. Crossref link
[ p. 181 ]
Tomaselli, M. V. and Gatt, A.
2015Italian Tag Questions and their Conversational Functions. Journal of Pragmatics 84(1), 54–82. Crossref link
Tottie, G. and Hoffmann, S.
2006Tag Questions in British and American English. Journal of English Linguistics 34(4):283–311. Crossref link
van der Wouden, T. and Caspers, J.
2010Nederlandse partikelbeschrijving in internationaal perspectief: waar zijn we eigenlijk en waar moet het toch naartoe? Internationale Neerlandistiek 48(1):52–62. Crossref link
van der Wouden, T. and Foolen, A.
2011Pragmatische Partikels in de Rechterperiferie. Nederlandse Taalkunde 16(3):307–322. Crossref link
2015Dutch Particles in the Right Periphery. In Final Particles, S. Hancil, A. Haselow and M. Post (eds), 221–247. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Vandeweghe, W.
2010Modale partikels en vertaling. Internationale Neerlandistiek 48(1):19–30. Crossref link
Weydt, H.
2006What are Particles Good for? In Approaches to Discourse Particles, K. Fischer (ed.), 203–217. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Zeevat, H. and Karagjosova, E.
2009History and Grammaticalisation of “Doch”/“Toch”. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 51:135–152.
Cited by

Cited by other publications

No author info given
2018.  In Tag Questions in Conversation [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 83], Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 june 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.