Discourse Markers and (Dis)fluency

Forms and functions across languages and registers

| Université catholique de Louvain
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027200464 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027264305 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
Spoken language is characterized by the occurrence of linguistic devices such as discourse markers (e.g. so, well, you know, I mean) and other so-called “disfluent” phenomena, which reflect the temporal nature of the cognitive mechanisms underlying speech production and comprehension. The purpose of this book is to distinguish between strategic vs. symptomatic uses of these markers on the basis of their combination, function and distribution across several registers in English and French. Through deep quantitative and qualitative analyses of manually annotated features in the new DisFrEn corpus, this usage-based study provides (i) an exhaustive portrait of discourse markers in English and French and (ii) a scale of (dis)fluency against which different configurations of discourse markers can be diagnosed as rather fluent or disfluent. By bringing together discourse markers and (dis)fluency under one coherent framework, this book is a unique contribution to corpus-based pragmatics, discourse analysis and crosslinguistic fluency research.
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 286]  2018.  xvi, 252 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
List of figures
ix–x
List of tables
xi–xii
List of abbreviations and acronyms
xiii–xiv
Acknowledgments
xv–xvi
Chapter 1. Introduction
1–7
Chapter 2. Definitions and corpus-based approaches to fluency and disfluency
9–31
Chapter 3. Definitions and corpus-based approaches to discourse markers
33–53
Chapter 4. Corpus and method
55–80
Chapter 5. Portraying the category of discourse markers
81–127
Chapter 6. Disfluency in interviews
129–147
Chapter 7. The (dis)fluency of discourse markers
149–176
Chapter 8. Discourse markers in repairs
177–205
Chapter 9. Conclusion
207–213
Bibliography
215–232
Appendix 1. Discourse markers by register
233
Appendix 2. List of discourse markers in DisFrEn and their functions
235–243
Appendix 3. List of functions in DisFrEn and their discourse markers
245–248
Appendix 4. Top-five most frequent functions by register in DisFrEn
249
Index
251–252
“Without any doubt, with DisFrEn, Ludivine Crible developed the largest, most diverse, and most inclusive spoken corpus annotated at the discourse level. This makes it an invaluable resource for further research, both for theoretical work and (computational) applications. The design of the annotation scheme, which is a topic of continuing research, is a crucial contribution to the field. The detailed way in which she motivates all her methodological decisions and procedures leaves the reader with a very transparent piece of work, making it possible to either replicate some of the studies, or to compare it with related work.”
“This excellent and innovative book offers a wealth of new data about discourse markers in spoken French and English. It will appeal to all researchers interested in discourse phenomena, corpus linguistics and cross-linguistic studies. I highly recommend it.”
“Crible has managed to perform quite a few impressive tasks in one project. This work will surely provide insight and nuance to the field of both pragmatics and corpus linguistics.”
References

Bibliography

Abeillé, Anne, Lionel Clément, and François Toussenel
2003 “Building a Treebank for French.” In Treebanks: Building and Using Parsed Copora, ed. by Anne Abeillé, 165–188. Dordretch: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin, and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen
(eds) 2006Pragmatic Markers in Contrast. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
2011 “Pragmatic Markers.” In Discursive Pragmatics, ed. by Jan Zienkowski, Jan-Ola Östmann and Jef Verschueren, 223–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt
2006 “The Function of Adverbial Connectors in Second Initial Position in English and Swedish.” In Pragmatic Markers in Contrast, ed. by Karin Aijmer, and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, 11–37. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Andersen, Gisle
1997 “They Like Wanna See Like How We Talk and All That. The Use of Like as a Discourse Marker in London Teenage Speech.” Corpus-Based Studies in English, ed. by Magnus Ljung, 37–48. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot
1983L’Argumentation dans la Langue. Liège-Bruxelles: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Maria Fagnano, and Michael K. Tanenhaus
2003 “Disfluencies Signal theee, um, New Information.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32 (1): 25–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., and Michael K. Tanenhaus
2011 “Disfluency Effects in Comprehension: How New Information Can Become Accessible.” In The Processing and Acquisition of Reference, ed. by Edward A. Gibson, and Neal J. Perlmutter, 197–217. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas, and Alex Lascarides
2003Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter
1996 “The Pre-Front Field in Spoken German and its Relevance as a Grammatical Position.” In Pragmatics 6 (3): 223–259. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 “Delayed Self-Repairs as a Structuring Device for Complex Turns in Conversation.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-interaction, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, and Margret Selting, 75–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “On-Line Syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language.” Language Sciences 31 (1): 1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter, and Stefan Pfänder
2007 “Multiple Retractions in Spoken French and Spoken German. A Contrastive Study in Oral Performance Styles.” Cahiers de Praxématique 48: 57–84.Google Scholar
Balthasar, Lukas, and Michel Bert
2005 “La base de données ‘Corpus de langues parlées en interaction’ (CLAPI): Genèse, état des lieux et perspectives [The database ‘Corpus of spoken languages in interaction’: Genesis, current state and perspectives].” Lidil 31.Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J., and Mandana Seyfeddinipur
2010 “The Role of Fillers in Listener Attributions for Speaker Disfluency.” Language and Cognitive Processes 25 (4): 441–455. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barth, Danielle, and Vsevolod Kapatsinski
2018 “Evaluating Logistic Mixed-Effects Models of Corpus Data.” In Mixed-Effects Regression Models in Linguistics, ed. by Dirk Speelman, Kris Heylen, and Dirk Geeraerts. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker
2014 “lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Eigen and S4.” R package version 1.0–6. http://​CRAN​.R​-project​.org​/package​=lme4.
Beeching, Kate
2007 “La co-variation des marqueurs discursifs bon, c’est-à-dire, enfin, hein, quand même, quoi et si vous voulez: Une question d’identité? [The co-variation of discourse markers bon, c’est-à-dire, enfin, hein, quand même, quoi and si vous voulez: A question of identity?].” Langue Française 154 (2): 78–93.Google Scholar
2016Pragmatic Markers in British English. Meaning in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 “Just a Suggestion: just/e in French and English.” In Discourse Markers, Pragmatics Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives, ed. by Chiara Fedriani, and Andrea Sanso, 465–487. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate, and Ulrich Detges
(eds) 2014The Role of the Left and Right Periphery in Semantic Change: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language and Language Change. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Beliao, Julie, and Anne Lacheret
2013 “Disfluency and Discursive Markers: When Prosody and Syntax Plan Discourse.” In Proceedings of Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech (DiSS), ed. by Robert Eklund: 5–8.Google Scholar
Bertrand, Roxanne, Philippe Blâche, Robert Espesser, Gaëlle Ferré, Christine Meunier, Béatrice Priego-Valverde, and Stéphane Rauzy
2008 “Le CID – Corpus of Interactional Data – Annotation et exploitation multimodale de parole conversationnelle [The CID – Corpus of Interactional Data – Annotation and multimodal exploitation of conversation speech].” Traitement Automatique des Langues 49 (3).Google Scholar
Besser, Jana, and Jan Alexandersson
2007 “A Comprehensive Disfluency Model for Multi-Party Interaction.” In Proceedings of the 8th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, ed. by Simon Keizer, Harry Bunt, and Tim Paek: 182–189.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad, and Randi Reppen
1998Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
1993 “The Relevance of Reformulations.” Language and Literature 2 (2): 101–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire
2003 “Le recouvrement de la syntaxe et de la macro-syntaxe [The mapping of syntax and macro-syntax].” In Macro-syntaxe et Pragmatique. L’Analyse Linguistique de l’Oral, ed. by Antonietta Scarano, 53–75. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire, Mireille Bilger, Christine Rouget, Karel Van Den Eynde, and Piet Mertens
1990Le Français Parlé. Etudes Grammaticales. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
BNC Consortium
2007 “The British National Corpus, Version 3 (BNC XML Edition).” Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services. http://​www​.natcorp​.ox​.ac​.uk/.
Bolly, Catherine
2015 “Towards Pragmatic Gestures: From Repetition to Construction in Multimodal Pragmatics.” Paper presented at the 13th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (ICLC-13), July 20–25, Newcastle, UK.
Bolly, Catherine, and Ludivine Crible
2015 “From Context to Functions and Back Again: Disambiguating Pragmatic Uses of Discourse Markers.” Paper presented at the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) Conference, July 26–31, Antwerp, Belgium.
Bolly, Catherine, Ludivine Crible, Liesbeth Degand, and Deniz Uygur-Distexhe
2015 “MDMA. Identification et annotation des marqueurs discursifs ‘potentiels’ en contexte. [MDMA. Identification and annotation of ‘potential’ discourse markers in context].” Discours 15.Google Scholar
2017 “Towards a Model for Discourse Marker Annotation in Spoken French: From Potential to Feature-Based Discourse Markers.” In Discourse Markers, Pragmatics Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives, ed. by Chiara Fedriani, and Andrea Sanso, 73–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolly, Catherine, and Anaïs Thomas
2015 “Facing Nadine’s Speech. Multimodal Annotation of Emotion in Later Life.” Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 110: 23–32.Google Scholar
Bortfeld, Heather, Silvia D. Leon, Jonathan E. Bloom, Michael F. Schober, and Susan E. Brennan
2001 “Disfluency Rates in Conversation: Effects of Age, Relationship, Topic, Role and Gender.” Language and Speech 44: 123–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bosker, Hans Rutger, Hugo Quené, Ted J. M. Sanders, and Nivja H. de Jong, N.
2014 “Native ‘um’s Elicit Prediction of Low-Frequency Referents, but Non-Native ‘um’s Do Not.” Journal of Memory and Language 75: 104–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boula de Mareüil, Philippe, Gilles Adda, Martine Adda-Decker, Claude Barras, Benoît Habert, and Patrick Paroubek
2013 “Une étude quantitative des marqueurs discursifs, disfluences et chevauchements de parole dans des interviews politiques [A quantitative study of discourse markers, disfluencies and overlaps in political interviews].” TIPA Travaux Interdisciplinaires sur la Parole et le Langage 29.Google Scholar
Boula De Mareüil, Philippe, Benoît Habert, Frédérique Bénard, Martine Adda-Decker, Claude Barras, Gilles Adda, and Patrick Paroubek
2005 “A Quantitative Study of Disfluencies in French Broadcast Interviews.” In Proceedings of Disfluency In Spontaneous Speech (DISS) Workshop, 10–12 September 2005, Aix-en-Provence, France: 27–32.Google Scholar
Brédart, Serge
1991 “Word Interruption in Self-Repairing.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 20 (2): 123–138.Google Scholar
Brennan, Susan E., and Michael F. Schober
2001 “How Listeners Compensate for Disfluencies in Spontaneous Speech.” Journal of Memory and Language 44: 274–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel
1996Pragmatic Markers in English. Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Briz, Antonio, and Salvador Pons Bordería
2010 “Unidades, marcadores discursivos y posición [Units, discourse markers and position].” In Los Estudios sobre Marcadores del Discurso, ed. by Oscar Loureda, and Esparanza Acin, 523–557. Madrid: Acro/Libros.Google Scholar
Briz, Antonio, and Val.Es.Co Group
2003 “Un sistema de unidades para el estudio del lenguaje coloquial [A system of units for the study of colloquial language].” Oralia 6: 7–61.Google Scholar
Broen, Patricia A., and Gerald M. Siegel
1972 “Variations in Normal Speech Disfluencies.” Language and Speech 15: 219–231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brumfit, Christopher J.
1984Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
1985Morphology: A Study on the Relation Between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition.” Language 82 (4): 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Candéa, Maria
2000Contribution à l’étude des pauses silencieuses et des phénomènes dits “d’hésitation” en français oral spontané [Contribution to the study of silent pauses and so-called “hesitation” phenomena in spontaneous spoken French]. PhD thesis, Université Paris III.Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald, and Michael McCarthy
2006Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, Lynn, Daniel Marcu, and Mary Ellen Okurowski
2002 “RST Discourse Treebank [Corpus].” Linguistic Data Consortium, Phildelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Castellà, Josep Maria
2004Oralitat i escriptura. Dues cares de la complexitat del llenguatge [Speech and writing. Two faces of the complexity of language]. Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1992 “The Importance of Corpus Linguistics to Understanding the Nature of Language.” In Directions in Corpus Linguistics, ed. by Jan Svartvik, 79–97. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Francine
1997 “What Do We Mean by Fluency?System 25 (4): 535–544. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chanet, Catherine
2001 “1700 occurrences de la particule quoi en français parlé contemporain: Approche de la ‘distribution’ et des fonctions en discours [1700 occurrences of the particle quoi in spoken contemporary French: Study of the ‘distribution’ and functions in discourse].” Marges Linguistiques 2: 56–80.Google Scholar
Charolles, Michel, and Danièle Coltier
1986 “Le contrôle de la compréhension dans une activité rédactionnelle: Eléments pour l’analyse des reformulations paraphrastiques. [Comprehension control in a writing activity: Elements for the analysis of paraphrastic reformulations].” Pratiques 49: 51–66.Google Scholar
Ciabarri, Federica
2013 “Italian Reformulation Markers: A Study on Spoken and Written Language.” In Across the Line of Speech and Writing Variation, ed. by Catherine Bolly, and Liesbeth Degand, 113–128. Louvain-la-Neuve, Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Jean E. Fox Tree
2002 “Using Uh and Um in Spontaneous Speaking.” Cognition 84: 73–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Thomas Wasow
1998 “Repeating Words in Spontaneous Speech.” Cognitive Psychology 37: 201–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colletta, Jean-Marc, Ramona N. Kunene, Aurélie Venouil, Virginie Kaufmann, and Jean-Pascal Simon
2009 “Multi-Track Annotation of Child Language and Gestures.” In Multimodal corpora: From Models of Natural Interaction to Systems and Applications, ed. by Michael Kipp, Jean-Claude Martin, Patrizia Paggio, and Dirk Heylen, 54–72. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collister, Lauren
2013Multimodality as a Sociolinguistic Resource. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Connor, Ulla M., and Ana I. Moreno
2005 “Tertium Comparationis: A Vital Component in Contrastive Research Methodology.” In Directions in Applied Linguistics: Essays in Honor of Robert B. Kaplan, ed. by Paul Bruthiaux, Dwight Atkinson, William Eggington, William Grabe, and Vaidehi Ramanathan, 153–164. England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Corley, and Martin
2010 “Making Predictions from Speech with Repairs: Evidence from Eye Movements.” Language and Cognitive Processes 25 (5): 706–727. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Martin, Lucy MacGregor, and David Donaldson
2007 “It’s the Way That You, er, Say It: Hesitations in Speech Affect Language Comprehension.” Cognition 105: 658–668. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crible, Ludivine
2014 “Identifying and Describing Discourse Markers in Spoken Corpora. Annotation Protocol v.8.” Technical report, Université catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
2015 “Grammaticalisation du marqueur discursif complexe ou sinon dans le corpus de SMS belge: Spécificités sémantiques, graphiques et diatopiques. [Grammaticalization of the complex discourse marker ou sinon in the Belgian text-message corpus: Semantic, graphic and diatopic features].” Le Discours et la Langue 7 (1): 181–200.Google Scholar
2017a “Towards an operational category of discourse markers: A definition and its model.” In Discourse Markers, Pragmatics Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives, ed. by Chiara Fedriani, and Andrea Sanso, 101–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017bDiscourse Markers and (Dis)-fluency across Registers: A Contrastive Usage-Based Study in English and French. PhD thesis, Université catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
2017c “Discourse markers and (dis)fluencies in English and French: Variation and combination in the DisFrEn corpus.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22 (2): 242–269.Google Scholar
Crible, Ludivine, and Maria Josep Cuenca
2017 “Discourse Markers in Speech: Characteristics and Challenges for Corpus Annotation”. Dialogue and Discourse 8 (2): 149–166.Google Scholar
Crible, Ludivine, and Liesbeth Degand
. In press. “Reliability vs. Granularity in Discourse Annotation: What is the Trade-Off?Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.
Crible, Ludivine, Liesbeth Degand, and Gaëtanelle Gilquin
2017 “The Clustering of Discourse Markers and Filled Pauses: A Corpus-Based French-English Study of (Dis)-fluency.” Languages in Contrast 17 (1): 69–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crible, Ludivine, Amandine Dumont, Iulia Grosman, and Ingrid Notarrigo
2016 “Annotation Manual of Fluency and Disfluency Markers in Multilingual, Multimodal, Native and Learner Corpora. Version 2.0.” Technical report, Université catholique de Louvain and Université de Namur.Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. “(Dis)-fluency across Spoken and Signed Languages: Applications of an Interoperable Annotation Scheme.”
Crible, Ludivine, and Sandrine Zufferey
2015 “Using a Unified Taxonomy to Annotate Discourse Markers in Speech and Writing.” In Proceedings of the 11th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (isa-11), IWCS 2015 Workshop, ed. by Harry Bunt, 14–22.Google Scholar
Crystal, David
1987The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1988 “Another Look at, Well, You KnowEnglish Today 4 (1): 47–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, Maria Josep
2003 “Two Ways to Reformulate: A Contrastive Analysis of Reformulation Markers.” Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1069–1093. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “The Fuzzy Boundaries Between Discourse Marking and Modal Marking.” In Discourse Markers and Modal Particles. Categorization and Description, ed. by Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie, and Paola Pietrandrea, 191–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, Maria Josep, and Carme Bach
2007 “Contrasting the Form and Use of Reformulation Markers.” Discourse Studies 9 (2): 149–175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, Maria Josep, and Maria Josep Marín
2009 “Co-Occurrence of Discourse Markers in Catalan and Spanish Oral Narrative.” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 899–914. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cutting, Joan
2008Pragmatics and Discourse, 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Danks, Joseph, and Laurel J. End
1987 “Processing Strategies for Reading and Listening.” In Comprehending Oral and Written Language, ed. by Rosalind Horowitz, and S. Jay Samuels, 271–294. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Danlos, Laurence, Margot Colinet, and Jacques Steinlin
2015 “FDTB1, première étape du projet ‘French Discourse Treebank’: repérage des connecteurs de discours en corpus [FDTB1, first step of the project ‘French Discourse Treebank’: identification of discourse connectives in corpus].” Discours 17 [online].Google Scholar
De Cock, Sylvie
2000 “Repetitive Phrasal Chunkiness and Advanced EFL Speech and Writing.” In Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20), ed. by Christian Mair, and Marianne Hundt, 51–68. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
De Gaulmyn, Marie-Madeline
1987 “Actes de reformulation et processus de reformulation [Reformulative acts and reformulation process].” In L’analyse des interactions verbales. La Dame de Caluire: Une consultation, ed. by Pierre Bange, 83–98. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Defour, Tine, Ulrique D’Hondt, Anne-Marie Vandenbergen, and Dominique Willems
2010 “ In Fact, En Fait, De Fait, Au Fait: A Contrastive Study of the Synchronic Correspondences and Diachronic Development of English and French Cognates.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 111 (4): 433–463.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth
2014 “ ‘So Very Fast, Very Fast Then’ Discourse Markers at Left and Right Periphery in Spoken French.” In The Role of the Left and Right Periphery in Semantic Change: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language and Language Change, ed. by Kate Beeching, and Ulrich Detges, 151–178. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, Laurence J. Martin, and Anne-Catherine Simon
2014 “Unités discursives de base et leur périphérie gauche dans LOCAS-F, un corpus oral multigenres annoté [Basic discourse units and their left periphery in LOCAS-F, a spoken multigenre annotated corpus].” In Proceedings of CMLF 2014–4ème Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française 2014, Berlin, Germany: EDP Sciences. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, and Anne-Catherine Simon
2009 “On Identifying Basic Discourse Units in Speech: Theoretical and Empirical Issues.” Discours 4.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen
2011 “Grammaticalization and (Inter)subjectification of Discourse Markers.” Linguistics 49: 287–294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Demirşahin, Işın, and Deniz Zeyrek
2014 “Annotating Discourse Connectives in Spoken Turkish.” In Proceedings of LAW VIII – The 8th Linguistic Annotation Workshop: 105–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Denke, Anita
2009Nativelike Performance. Pragmatic Markers, Repair and Repetition in Native and Non-native English Speech. Saarbrücken: Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Susanne Günthner
2015Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger, and Martin Hilpert
2016 “Frequency Effects in Grammar.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, ed. by Mark Aronoff. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dister, Anne
2007De la transcription à l’étiquetage morphosyntaxique – Le cas de la banque de données textuelles orales VALIBEL [From transcription to morphosyntactic tagging – The case of the spoken text databank VALIBEL]. PhD thesis, Université catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
Dister, Anne, Michel Francard, Philippe Hambye, and Anne-Catherine Simon
2009 “Du corpus à la banque de données. Du son, des textes et des métadonnées. L’évolution de la banque de données textuelles orales VALIBEL (1989–2009) [From corpus to databank. Sound, texts and metadata. The evolution of the spoken text databank VALIBEL (1989–2009).” Cahiers de Linguistique 33 (2), 113–129.Google Scholar
Dobrovoljc, Kaja
2016 “Annotation of Multi-Word Discourse Markers in Spoken Slovene.” Poster presented at Discourse Relational Devices Conference (LPTS2016), Linguistic & Psycholinguistic Approaches to Text Structuring, January 24–26, Valencia, Spain.
Dostie, Gaëtane
2004Pragmaticalisation et marqueurs discursifs. Analyse sémantique et traitement lexicographique [Pragmaticalization and discourse markers. Semantic analysis and lexicographic treatment]. Bruxelles: De Boeck.Google Scholar
2013 “Les associations de marqueurs discursifs – De la cooccurrence libre à la collocation [Associations of discourse markers – From free co-occurrence to collocation].” Linguistik Online 62 (5).Google Scholar
Du Bois, John
2014 “Towards a Dialogic Syntax.” Cognitive Linguistics 25 (3): 359–410. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John, Wallace Chafe, Charles Meyer, Sandra A. Thompson, Robert Englebretson, and Nii Martey
2000–2005Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Parts 1–4. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Duez, Danielle
1991La pause dans la parole de l’homme politique [Pauses in the speech of politicians]. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Dupont, Maïté
2015 “Word Order in English and French. The Position of English and French Adverbial Connectors of Contrast.” English Text Construction 8 (1): 88–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Durand, Jacques, Bernard Laks, and Chantal Lyche
2002 “La phonologie du français contemporain: Usages, variétés et structure [Phonology of contemporary French: Uses, varieties and structure].” In Romanistische Korpuslinguistik – Korpora und gesprochene Sprache / Romance Corpus Linguistics – Corpora and Spoken Language, ed. by Claus D. Pusch, and Wolfgand Raible, 93–106. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
2009 “Le projet PFC: Une source de données primaires structurées [The PFC project: A resource for structured primary data].” In Phonologie, variation et accents du français, ed. by Jacques Durand, Bernard Laks, and Chantal Lyche, 19–61. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
Dutrey, Camille, Sophie Rosset, Martine Adda-Decker, Chloé Clavel, and Ioana Vasilescu
2014 “Disfluences dans la parole spontanée conversationnelle: Détection automatique utilisant des indices lexicaux et acoustiques [Disfluencies in spontaneous conversational speech: Automatic detection using lexical and acoustic cues].” In Proceedings of the XXXe Journées d’Etude sur la Parole (JEP’14): 366–373.Google Scholar
Ejzenberg, Roseli
2000 “The Juggling Act of Oral Fluency: A Psycho-Sociolinguistic Metaphor.” In Perspectives on Fluency, ed. by Heidi Riggenbach, 288–313. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Eklund, Robert
2004Disfluency in Swedish Human-human and Human-machine Travel Booking Dialogues. PhD thesis, Linköping Studies in Science and Technology.Google Scholar
Eklund, Robert, and Elizabeth Shriberg
1998 “Crosslinguistic Disfluency Modeling: A Comparative Analysis of Swedish and American English Human-Human and Human-Machine Dialogs.” In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing.Google Scholar
Erard, Michael
2004 “Just Like, Er, Words, Not, Um, Throwaways.” The New York Times, 2 January 2004: A 13 & A 15.Google Scholar
Erman, Britt
2001 “Pragmatic Markers Revisited with a Focus on You Know in Adult and Adolescent Talk.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1337–1359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Esser, Jürgen
1993English Linguistic Stylistics. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Estellés Arguedas, María, and Salvador Pons Bordería
2014 “Absolute Initial Position.” In Discourse Segmentation in Romance Languages, ed. by Salvador Pons Bordería, 121–155. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fernández Polo, Fransisco Javier
1999Traducción y retórica contrastiva. A propósito de la traducción de textos de divulgación científica del inglés al español [Translation and contrastive rhetoric. On the translation of texts for scientific dissemination from English to Spanish]. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Anexo de Moenia 6.Google Scholar
Fiksdal, Susan
2000 “Fluency as a Function of Time and Rapport.” In Perspectives on Fluency, ed. by Heidi Riggenbach, 128–140. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles
1979 “On Fluency.” In Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior, ed. by Charles Fillmore, Daniel Kempler, and William S-Y. Wang, 85–102. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 “On Fluency.” In Perspectives on Fluency, ed. by Heidi Riggenbach, 43–60. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin
2006 “Towards an Understanding of the Spectrum of Approaches to Discourse Particles: Introduction to the Volume.” In Approaches to discourse particles, ed. by Kerstin Fischer, 1–20. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
2014 “Discourse Markers.” In Pragmatics of Discourse, ed. by Klaus Schneider, and Anne Barron, 271–294. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne, and Marina Yaguello
2004 “Discourse Markers across Languages. Evidence from English and French.” In Discourse across Languages and Cultures, ed. by Carol Lynn Moder, and Aida Martinovic-Zic, 129–148. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flower, Linda, and John R. Hayes
1981 “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and Communication 32 (4): 365–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foster, Pauline, Alan Tonkyn, and Gillian Wigglesworth
2000 “Measuring Spoken Language: A Unit for all Reasons.” Applied Linguistics 21 (3): 354–375. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., Makoto Hayashi, and Robert Jasperson
1996 “Resources and Repair: A Cross-Linguistic Study of Syntax and Repair.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 185–237. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox Tree, Jean E.
2001 “Listeners’ Uses of Um and Uh in Speech Comprehension.” Memory and Cognition 29 (2): 320–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “Discourse Markers in Writing.” Discourse Studies 17 (1): 64–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
1996 “Pragmatic markers.” Pragmatics 6 (2): 167–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 “What Are Discourse Markers?Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931–952. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Freed, Barbara F.
2000 “Is Fluency, like Beauty, in the Eyes (and Ears) of the Beholder?” In Perspectives on Fluency, ed. by Heidi Riggenbach, 243–265. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Gabarró-López, Sílvia
. Forthcoming. “Marqueurs du discours en langue des signes de Belgique francophone (LSFB) et langue des signes catalane (LSC): Les ‘balise-listes’ et les ‘palm-ups’ [Discourse markers in Belgian French sign language (LSFB) and Catalan sign language (LSC): ‘buoys’ and ‘palm-ups’].” In Marcadores del discurso y lingüística contrastiva en las lenguas románicas ed. by Oscar Loureda, Guillermo Álvarez Sellán, and Martha Rudka. Madrid: Iberoamericana Vervuert.
Geluykens, Ronald
1994The Pragmatics of Discourse Anaphora in English. Evidence from Conversational Repair. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gerstenberg, Annette, and Catherine Bolly
2015 “Functions of Repetition in the Discourse of Elderly Speakers: The Role of Prosody and Gesture.” Paper presented at the 14th International Pragmatics Conference (IPrA), July 26–31, Antwerp, Belgium.
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
2016 “Discourse Markers in L2 English. From Classroom to Naturalistic Input.” In New Approaches to English Linguistics: Building Bridges, ed. by Olga Timofeeva, Anne-Christine Gardner, Alpo Honkapohja, and Sarah Chevalier, 213–249. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, and Sylvie De Cock
2011 “Errors and Disfluencies in Spoken Corpora. Setting the Scene.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16 (2): 141–172. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan, Raquel Fernandez, and David Schlangen
2014 “Disfluencies as Intra-Utterance Dialogue Moves.” Semantics & Pragmatics 7: 1–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, Dylan
2010 “Corpus-Driven Cognitive Semantics. Introduction to the Field.” In Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches, ed. by Dylan Glynn, and Kerstin Fischer, 1–41. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Jean-Philippe, Tea Prsir, and Antoine Auchlin
2014 “C-PhonoGenre: A 7-Hour Corpus of 7 Speaking Styles in French: Relations between Situational Features and Prosodic Properties.” In Proceedings of the 9th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC’14): 302–305.Google Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, Frieda
1968Psycholinguistics: Experiments in Spontaneous Speech. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gómez González, María de los Ángeles
2014 “Canonical Tag Questions in English, Spanish and Portuguese. A Discourse-Functional Study.” Languages in Contrast 14 (1): 93–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
González, Montserrat
2005 “Pragmatic Markers and Discourse Coherence Relations in English and Catalan Oral Narrative.” Discourse Studies 77 (1), 53–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Götz, Sandra
2013Fluency in Native and Nonnative English Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granger, Sylviane, and Stephanie Petch-Tyson
1996 “Connector Usage in the English Essay Writing of Native and Non-Native EFL Speakers of English.” World Englishes: Journal of English as an International and Intranational Language 15 (1): 17–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greene, John O., and Joseph N. Cappella
1986 “Cognition and Talk: The Relationship of Semantic Units to Temporal Patterns of Fluency in Spontaneous Speech.” Language and Speech 29 (2): 141–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, Herbert P.
1957 “Meaning.” The Philosophical Review 66: 377–388. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan
2011 “Corpus Data in Usage-Based Linguistics: What’s the Right Degree of Granularity for the Analysis of Argument Structure Constructions?” In Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion, ed. by Mario Brdar, Stefan Gries, and Milena Žic Fuchs, 237–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan, and Anatol Stefanowitsch
(eds) 2006Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, François, and Alain Deschamps
1975 “Analyse contrastive des variables temporelles de l’anglais et du français: Vitesse de parole et variables composantes, phénomènes d’hésitation [Contrastive analysis of temporal variables in English and French: Speech rate and other variables, hesitation phenomena].” Phonetica 31: 144–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grosman, Iulia
2016 “How Do French Humorists Manage their Persona across Situations? A Corpus Study on their Prosodic Variation.” In Metapragmatics of Humor: Current Research Trends, ed. by Leonor Ruiz-Gurillo, 147–175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guillemin-Flescher, Jacqueline
1981Syntaxe comparée du français et de l’anglais [Comparative syntax of French and English]. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Gülich, Elisabeth, and Thomas Kotschi
1987 “Les actes de reformulation dans la consultation La dame de Caluire [Reformulative acts in the consultation The Lady of Caluire].” In L’Analyse des interactions verbales. La dame de Caluire: Une Consultation, ed. by Pierre Bange, 15–81. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
1995 “Discourse Production in Oral Communication.” In Aspects of Oral Communication, ed. by Uta M. Quasthoff, 30–66. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K.
1970 “Functional Diversity in Language as Seen from a Consideration of Modality and Mood in English.” Foundations of Language: International Journal of Language and Philosophy 6: 322–361.Google Scholar
1987 “Spoken and Written Modes of Meaning.” In Comprehending Oral and Written Language, ed. by Roalind Horowitz, and S. Jay Samuels, 55–82. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan
1976Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1989Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt M.
2006 “A Dynamic Polysemy Approach to the Lexical Semantics of Discourse Markers (with an Exemplary Analysis of French toujours ) .” In Approaches to Discourse Particles, ed. by Kerstin Fischer, 21–41. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
2008Particles at the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface: Synchronic and Diachronic Issues. A Study with Special Reference to the French Phrasal Adverbs. Elsevier: Oxford.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander
2012 “Subjectivity, Intersubjectivity and the Negotiation of Common Ground in Spoken Discourse: Final Particles in English.” Language and Communication 32: 182–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hasselgren, Alexander
2002 “Learner Corpora and Language Testing: Small Words as Markers of Learner Fluency.” In Computer-Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching, ed. by Sylviane Granger, Joseph Hung, and Stephanie Petch-Tyson, 143–173. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heeman, Peter, and James Allen
1999 “Speech Repairs, Intonational Phrases and Discourse Markers: Modeling Speakers’ Utterances in Spoken Dialog.” Computational Linguistics 25 (4): 1–45.Google Scholar
Hieke, Adolf E.
1985 “A Componential Approach to Oral Fluency Evaluation.” The Modern Language Journal 69 (2): 135–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian
2004 “Are Low-Frequency Complex Prepositions Grammaticalized? On the Limits of Corpus Data – and the Importance of Intuition.” In Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English, Hans Lindquist, and Christian Mair, 171–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul
1987 “Emergent grammar.” In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by Jon Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis, and Hana Filip. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul, and Elizabeth C. Traugott
2003Grammaticalization (Second Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Kurt Hornik, and Achim Zeileis
2006 “Unbiased Recursive Partitioning: A Conditional Inference Framework.” Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15 (3): 651–674. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, Kellogg W.
1965Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. NCTE Research Report 3. Champaign, Ill.: NCTE.Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund
1964The Phenomenology of Internal Time-Consciousness. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Izutsu, Mitsuko N., and Katsunobu Izutsu
2014 “Truncation and Backshift: Two Pathways to Sentence-Final Coordinating Conjunctions.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 15 (1): 62–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
James, Carl
1980Contrastive Analysis. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Katarzyna M.
> 2003 “On Translating ‘What is Said’: Tertium Comparationis in Contrastive Semantics and Pragmatics.” In Meaning through Language Contrast, ed. by Katarzyna M. Jaszczolt, and Ken Turner, 441–462. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne, and Michael Barlow
2000 “Introduction: A Usage-Based Conception of Language.” In Usage Based Models of Language, ed. by Michael Barlow, and Suzanne Kemmer, vii–xxviii. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter, and Wulf Osterreicher
2001 “Gesprochene Sprache und geschriebene Sprache / Langage parlé et langage écrit [Spoken language and written language].” In Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik, ed. by Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin, and Christian Schmitt, 584–627. Bd. I / 2. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Kohn, Kurt
2012 “Pedagogic Corpora for Content and Language Integrated Learning. Insights from the BACKBONE Project.” The Eurocall Review 20 (2).Google Scholar
Koponen, Matti, and Heidi Riggenbach
2000 “Overview: Varying Perspectives on Fluency.” In Perspectives on Fluency, ed. by Heidi Riggenbach, 5–25. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kormos, Judit
2006Speech Production and Second Language Acquisition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P.
1981 “Tertium Comparationis.” In Contrastive Linguistics: Prospects and Problems, ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 301–312. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kunz, Kerstin, and Ekaterina Laphinova-Koltunski
2015 “Cross-Linguistic Analysis of Discourse Variation across Registers.” Nordic Journal of English Studies 14 (1): 258–288.Google Scholar
Labov, William
1972Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lacheret, Anne, Sylvain Kahane, and Paola Pietrandrea
(eds) 2014Rhapsodie: A Prosodic and Syntactic Treebank for Spoken French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol.1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1988 “An Overview of Cognitive Grammar.” In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 3–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2000 “A Dynamic Usage-Based Model.” In Usage Based Models of Language, ed. by Michael Barlow, and Suzanne Kemmer, 1–63. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Lapshinova-Koltunski, Ekaterina, Anna Nedoluzhko, and Kerstin Kunz
2015 “Across Languages and Genres: Creating a Universal Annotation Scheme for Textual Relation.” In Proceedings of LAW IX at NAACL HLT 2015, Denver, USA. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Hye-Kyung
2002 “Towards a New Typology of Connectives with Special Reference to Conjunction in English and Korean.” Journal of Pragmatics 34: 851–866. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leijten, Mariëlle, and Luuk Van Waes
2013 “Keystroke Logging in Writing Research Using Inputlog to Analyze and Visualize Writing Processes.” Written Communication 30 (3): 358–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lenk, Uta
1998 “Discourse Markers and Global Coherence in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 30: 245–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lennon, Paul
2000 “The Lexical Element in Spoken Second Language Fluency.” In Perspectives on Fluency, ed. by Heidi Riggenbach, 25–42. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Léon, Pierre Roger
1993Précis de Phonostylistique, Parole et Expressivité. Paris: Nathan Université.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M.
1981 “The Speaker’s Linearization Problem.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 295 (1077): 305–315. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1983 “Monitoring and Self-Repair in Speech.” Cognition 14: 41–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1989Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana
2006a “Contrastive Analysis of Adversative Relational Markers, Using Comparable Corpora.” In Pragmatic Markers in Contrast, ed. by Karin Aijmer, and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, 139–153. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
2006b “Discourse Markers in English: A Discourse-Pragmatic View.” In Approaches to Discourse Particles, ed. by Kerstin Fischer, 43–60. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan
2001 “Inner and Outer Syntax of Constructions: The Case of the X Och X Construction in Swedish.” Paper presented at the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, July 9–14 2000, Budapest, Hungary.
Linell, Per
1982The Written Language Bias in Linguistics. Linköping, Sweden: University of Linköping.Google Scholar
Little, Daniel R., Raoul Oehmen, John Dunn, Kathryn Hird, and Kim Kirsner
2013 “Fluency Profiling System: An Automated System for Analyzing the Temporal Properties of Speech.” Behavioral Research Methods 45 (1): 191–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Kris, and Jean E. Fox Tree
2012 “Hedges Enhance Memory but Inhibit Retelling.” Psychon Bull Rev 19: 892–898. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lopes, António, David Martins de Matos, Vera Cabarrão, Ricardo Ribeiro, Helena Moniz, Isabel Trancoso, and Ana Isabel Mata
2015 “Towards Using Machine Translation Techniques to Induce Multilingual Lexica of Discourse Markers.” CoRR abs/1503.09144.
Luscher, Jean-Marc
1993 “La marque de connexion complexe [The complex connection marker].” Cahiers de Linguistique Française 14: 173–188.Google Scholar
1994 “Marques de connexion: Procédures de traitement et guidage référentiel [Connection markers: Processing and referential guidance].” In Langage et pertinence. Référence Temporelle, Anaphore, Connecteurs et Métaphore, ed. by Jacques Moeschler, Anne Reboul, Jean-Marc Luscher, and Jacques Jayez, 175–228. Nancy: Presses universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar
MacGregor, Lucy, Corley, Martin, and David Donaldson
2009 “Not All Disfluencies Are Are Equal: The Effects of Disfluent Repetitions on Language Comprehension.” Brain & Language 111: 36–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maclay, Howard, and Charles E. Osgood
1959 “Hesitation Phenomena in Spontaneous English Speech.” Word 15: 19–44 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mahesha, P. & Vinod, D.
2012 “An Approach for Classification of Dysfluent and Fluent Speech Using K-NN and SVM.” International Journal of Computer Science, Engineering and Applications (IJCSEA) 2 (6): 23–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mann, William, and Sandra A. Thompson
1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text 8 (3): 243–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marchi, Anna, and Charlotte Taylor
2009 “If on a Winter’s Night Two Researchers… A Challenge to Assumptions of Soundness of Interpretation.” Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 3 (1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Maschler, Yael, and Deborah Schiffrin
2015 “Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning, and Context.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. 2nd Edition, ed. by Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton, and Deborah Schiffrin, 189–221. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
McHugh, Mary L.
2012 “Interrater Reliability: The Kappa Statistic.” Biochemia Medica 22 (3): 276–282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Merlo, Sandra, and Leticia Mansur
2004 “Descriptive Discourse: Topic Familiarity and Disfluencies.” Journal of Communication Disorders 37: 489–503. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meteer, Marie W., Ann A. Taylor, Robert MacIntyre, and Rukmini Iyer
1995Disfluency Annotation Stylebook for the Switchboard Corpus. Technical report, Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Meyer, Thomas, Andrei Popescu-Belis, Najeh Hajlaoui, and Andrea Gesmundo
2012 “Machine Translation of Labeled Discourse Connectives.” In Proceedings of the Tenth Biennial Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (AMTA).Google Scholar
Meyer, David, Achim Zeileis, and Kurt Hornik
2014vcd: Visualizing Categorical Data. R package version 1.3–2.Google Scholar
Mieskes, Margot, and Michael Strube
2008 “A Three-Stage Disfluency Classifier for Multi Party Dialogues.” In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation: 2681–2686.Google Scholar
Miskovic-Lukovic, Mirjana
2009 “Is There a Chance That I Might Kinda Sort of Take You out to Dinner?: The Role of the Pragmatic Particles Kind of and Sort of in Utterance Interpretation.” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 602–625. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moniz, Helena
2013Processing Disfluencies in European Portuguese. PhD thesis, Universidade de Lisboa.Google Scholar
Mulder, Jean, and Sandra A. Thompson
2008 “The Grammaticization of but as a Final Particle in English Conversation.” In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, ed. by Ritva Laury, 179–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Simone
2005Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murillo, Silvia
2016 “Reformulation Markers and Polyphony. A Contrastive English-Spanish Analysis.” Languages in Contrast 16 (1): 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mustajoki, Arto
2012 “A Speaker-Oriented Multidimensional Approach to Risks and Causes of Miscommunication.” Language and Dialogue 2 (2): 216–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nakatani, Christine H., and Julia Hirschberg
1994 “A Corpus-Based Study of Repair Cues in Spontaneous Speech.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 95 (3): 1603–1616. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Gerard, Sean Wallis, and Bas Aarts
2002Exploring Natural Language: Working with the British Component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, Stella
2014 “Cross-Linguistic Register Studies. Theoretical and Methodological Considerations.” Languages in Contrast 14 (1): 35–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nølke, Henning
2006 “Pour une théorie linguistique de la polyphonie: Problèmes, avantages, perspectives [For a linguistic theory of polyphony: Problems, advantages, perspectives].” In Le Sens et ses Voix. Dialogisme et Polyphonie en Langue et en Discours, ed. by Laurent Perrin, 243–269. Metz: Université Paul Verlaine.Google Scholar
Nzoimbengene, Philippe
2016Les ‘discourse markers’ en lingála. Étude sémantique et pragmatique sur base d’un corpus de lingála de Kinshasa oral [Discourse markers in Lingála. Semantic and pragmatic study on a corpus of spoken Língala from Kinshasa]. PhD thesis, Université catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
O’Connell, Daniel C., and Sabine H. Kowal
1972 “Cross-Linguistic Pause and Rate Phenomena in Adults and Adolescents.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1: 155–164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, W. R., and Loreto Todd
1980Variety in Contemporary English. London: Allen and Unwin. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oza, Umangi, Rashmi Prasad, Sudheer Kolachina, Suman Meena, Dipti Misra Sharma, and Aravind Joshi
2009 “Experiments with Annotating Discourse Relations in the Hindi Discourse Relation Bank.” In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Natural Language Processing (ICON): 1–10.Google Scholar
Palisse, Stéphanie
1997Artisans”, “Assureurs”, Conversations téléphoniques en entreprise [“Craftsmen”, “Insurance workers”, Phone business conversations]. Retrieved from http://​clapi​-univ​.lyon2​.fr (last accessed March 2014).
Pallaud, Bertille, Stéphane Rauzy, and Philippe Blâche
2013 “Auto-interruptions et disfluences en français parlé dans quatre corpus du CID [Self-interruptions and disfluencies in spoken French in four corpora of the CID].” TIPA Travaux Interdisciplinaires sur la Parole et le Langage 29.Google Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk L. W., and Liesbeth Degand
2001 “Scaling Causal Relations and Connectives in Terms of Speaker Involvement.” Cognitive Linguistics 12 (3): 211–245.Google Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk L. W., and Ted J. M. Sanders
2000 “Domains of Use and Subjectivity. On the Distribution of Three Dutch Causal Connectives.” In Cause, Condition, Concession and Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, ed. by Bernd Kortmann, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 57–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 “Subjectivity in Causal Connectives: An Empirical Study of Language in Use.” Cognitive Linguistics 12 (3): 247–273.Google Scholar
Pascual, Elena, and Ludivine Crible
2017 “Discourse Markers within (Dis)fluent Constructions in English, French and Spanish Casual Conversations: The Challenges of Contrastive Fluency Research.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Fluency and Disfluency across Languages and Language Varieties, February 15–17, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Pawley, Andrew, and Frances Syder
1975 “Sentence Formulation in Spontaneous Speech.” New Zealand Speech Therapists’ Journal 30 (2): 2–11.Google Scholar
1983 “Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection and Nativelike Fluency.” In Language and Communication, ed. by Jack C. Richards, and Richard Schmidt, 191–225. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2000 “The One-Clause-at-a-Time Hypothesis.” In Perspectives on Fluency, ed. by Heidi Riggebbach, 163–199. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Pichler, Heike
2016 “Uncovering Discourse-Pragmatic Innovations: Innit in Multicultural London English.” In Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change in English: New Methods and Insights, ed. by Heike Pichler, 59–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pitler, Emily, and Ani Nenkova
2009 “Using Syntax to Disambiguate Explicit Discourse Connectives in Text.” In Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP Conference Short Papers: 13–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Poggi, Isabella, and Emanuela Magno Caldognetto
1996 “A Score for the Analysis of Gestures in Multimodal Communication.” In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Integration of Gesture and Language in Speech, ed. by Lynn Messing, 235–244. Newark and Wilmington: Applied Science and Engineering Laboratories, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Pons Bordería, Salvador
2008 “La combinación de marcadores del discurso en la conversación coloquial: Interacciones entre posición y función [Combination of discourse markers in casual conversation: Interactions between position and funcion].” Estudos Linguísticos/Linguistic Studies 2: 141–159.Google Scholar
Popescu-Belis, Andrei, Thomas Meyer, Jeevanthi Liyanapathirana, Bruno Cartoni, and Sandrine Zufferey
2012 “Discourse-Level Annotation over Europarl for Machine Translation: Connectives and Pronouns.” In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’8).Google Scholar
Postma, Albert, Herman Kolk, and Dirk-Jan Povel
1990 “On the Relation among Speech Errors, Disfluencies, and Self-Repairs.” Language and Speech 33 (1): 19–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prasad, Rashmi, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi, and Bonnie Webber
2008 “The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0.” In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 08), Marrackech, Morroco: 2961–2968.Google Scholar
Ragan, Sandra L.
1983 “Alignment and Conversational Coherence.” In Conversational Coherence: Form, Structure and Strategy, ed. by Robert T. Craig, and Karen Tracy, 157–171. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Razgouliaeva, Anna
2002 “Combinaisons des connecteurs mais enfin [Combinations of the connectives mais enfin ‘but well’].” Cahiers de Linguistique Française 24: 143–168.Google Scholar
Redeker, Gisela
1991 “Linguistic Markers of Discourse Structure.” Linguistics 29: 1139–1172.Google Scholar
Reese, Brian, and Nicholas Asher
2007 “Prosody and the Interpretation of Tag Questions.” In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, ed. by Estela Puig-Waldmüller, 448–462. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Rendle-Short, Johanna
2004 “Showing Structure: Using Um in the Academic Seminar.” In Pragmatics 14 (4): 479–498. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Benjamin, and Kim Kirsner
2000 “Temporal Cycles in Speech Production.” Language and Cognitive Processes 15 (2): 129–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rossari, Corinne
1990 “Projet pour une typologie des opérations de reformulation [Project for a typology of reformulative operations].” Cahiers de Linguistique Française 11: 345–359.Google Scholar
1994Les Opérations de reformulation [Reformulative operations]. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Roulet, Eddy, Antoine Auchlin, Jacques Moeschler, and Christian Rubattel
1985L’Articulation du discours en français Contemporain [Discourse articulation in contemporary French]. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rühlemann, Christoph, and Matthew B. O’Donnell
2012 “Introducing a Corpus of Conversational Stories. Construction and Annotation of the Narrative Corpus.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8 (2): 313–350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M.
1997 “Semantic and Pragmatic Sources of Coherence: On the Categorization of Coherence Relations in Context.” Discourse Processes 24 (1): 119–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Santorini, Beatrice
1990Part-of-Speech Tagging Guidelines for the Penn Treebank Project (3rd Revision, 2nd Printing). Technical Report, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks
1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1987Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg
2000English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells. From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 “Generalizing the Apparently Ungeneralizable. Basic Ingredients of a Cognitive-Pragmatic Approach to the Construal of Meaning-in-Context.” In Cognitive Pragmatics, ed. by Hans-Jörg Schmid, 3–22. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Richard
1992 “Psychological Mechanisms Underlying Language Fluency.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14: 357–385. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Thomas, and Kai Wörner
2012 “EXMARaLDA.” In Handbook on Corpus Phonology, ed. by Jacques Durand, Ulrike Gut, and Gjert Kristoffersen, 402–419. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schönefeld, Doris
1999 “Corpus Linguistics and Cognitivism.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4 (1): 137–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence
1999 “Discourse markers.” Lingua 107: 227–265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, Norman
2010Cognitive Bases of Second Language Fluency. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Seyfeddinipur, Mandana
2006Disfluency: Interrupting Speech and Gesture. MP Series in Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Shriberg, Elizabeth
1994Preliminaries to a Theory of Speech Disfluencies. PhD thesis, University of California at Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Simon, Anne-Catherine, Antoine Auchlin, Matthieu Avanzi, and Jean-Philippe Goldman
2010 “Les phonostyles: Une description prosodique des styles de parole en français. [Phonostyles: A prosodic description of speech styles in French].” In Les Voix des Français. En Parlant, en Ecrivant, ed. by Michaël Abecassi, and Gudrun Ledegen, 71–88. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1986Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert, and Liesbeth Degand
2010 “Coding Coherence Relations: Reliability and Validity.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6 (2): 241–266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strassel, Stephanie
2003Simple Metadata Annotation Specification v.5. Technical report, Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Stubbe, Maria, and Janet Holmes
1995 “ You Know, Eh and Other ‘Exasperating Expressions’: An Analysis of Social and Stylistic Variation in the Use of Pragmatic Devices in a Sample of New Zealand English.” Language & Communication 15 (1): 63–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stukker, Ninke, and Ted J. M. Sanders
2012 “Subjectivity and Prototype Structure in Causal Connectives: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 44: 169–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve
1990From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swerts, Marc
1998 “Filled Pauses as Markers of Discourse Structure.” Journal of Pragmatics 30: 485–496. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien
1959Éléments de syntaxe structurale [Elements of structural syntax]. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Tonelli, Sara, Giuseppe Riccardi, Rashmi Prasad, and Aravind Joshi
2010 “Annotation of Discourse Relations for Conversational Spoken Dialogs.” In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 10), Valletta, Malta: 2084–2090.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel
2015 “ Uh and Um in British and American English: Are They Words? Evidence from Co-Occurrence with Pauses.” In Linguistic variation: Confronting Fact and Theory, ed. by Nathalie Dion, André Lapierre, and Rena Torres Cacoullos, 38–54. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C.
2007 “(Inter)subjectification and Unidirectionality.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8: 295–309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Unger, Christoph
1996 “The Scope of Discourse Connectives: Implications for Discourse Organization.” Journal of Linguistics 32: 403–438. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Urgelles-Coll, Miriam
2012The Syntax and Semantics of Discourse Markers. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie
2011 “ I Think and Other Complement-Taking Mental Predicates: A Case of and for Constructional Grammaticalization.” Linguistics 49 (2): 295–332.Google Scholar
Vasilescu, Ioana, Rena Nemoto, and Martine Adda-Decker
2007 “Vocalic Hesitations vs Vocalic Systems: A Cross-Language Comparison.” In Proceedings of the ICPhS 16th International Congress of Phonetic Science.Google Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul, and Jean Darbelnet
1995Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation. Translated and ed. by Juan C. Sager, and Marie-Josée Hamel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Suzanne E., and Ashley Hesson
2014 “Individual Sensitivity to the Frequency of Socially Meaningful Linguistic Cues Affects Language Attitudes.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 33 (6): 651–666. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, Richard
2007 “À propos de la genèse diachronique des combinaisons de marqueurs. L’exemple de bon ben et enfin bref [About the diachronic genesis of combinations of markers. The example of bon ben ‘right well’ and enfin bref ‘I mean anyway’].” Langue Française 154: 94–128.Google Scholar
Waltereit, Richard, and Ulrich Detges
2007 “Different Functions, Different Histories. Modal Particles and Discourse Markers from a Diachronic Point of View.” In Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 61–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Michiko, Keikichi Hirose, Yasuharu Den, and Nobuaki Minematsu
2008 “Filled Pauses as Cues to the Complexity of Up-Coming Phrases for Native and Non-Native Listeners.” Speech Communications 50: 81–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willems, Dominique, and Annemie Demol
2006 “ Vraiment and really in Contrast: When Truth and Reality Meet.” In Pragmatic Markers in Contrast, ed. by Karin Aijmer, and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, 215–235. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Zechner, Klaus
2001Automatic Summarization of Spoken Dialogues in Unrestricted Domains. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Zeileis, Achim, David Meyer, and Kurt Hornik
2007 “Residual-Based Shadings for Visualizing Conditional Independence.” Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 16 (3): 507–525. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zeyrek, Deniz, Işın Demirşahin, Ayişigi B. Sevdik Çalli, and Ruken Çakici
2013 “Turkish Discourse Bank: Porting a Discourse Annotation Style to a Morphologically Rich Language.” Dialogue & Discourse 4 (2): 174–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Yuan, and Dan Jurafsky
2005 “A Preliminary Study of Mandarin Filled Pauses.” In Proceedings of DiSS’05, Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech Workshop, September 10–12, Aix-en-Provence, France: 179–182.Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine, and Bruno Cartoni
2012 “English and French Causal Connectives in Contrast.” Languages in Contrast 12 (2): 232–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine, and Liesbeth Degand
2013 “Representing the Meaning of Discourse Connectives for Multilingual Purposes.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 10.Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine, and Andrei Popescu-Belis
2004 “Towards Automatic Identification of Discourse Markers in Dialogs: The Case of ‘Like’.” In Proceedings of SIGDIAL’04 (5th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue), Cambridge, MA: 63–71.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

No author info given
2021.  In Conjunctive Markers of Contrast in English and French [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 99], Crossref logo
Crible, Ludivine & Sílvia Gabarró-López
2020. Coherence relations across speech and sign language. Languages in Contrast Crossref logo
De Cristofaro, Elisa & Linda Badan
2019. The Acquisition of Italian Discourse Markers as a Function of Studying Abroad. Corpus Pragmatics Crossref logo
Didirková, Ivana, Ludivine Crible & Anne Catherine Simon
2019. Impact of Prosody on the Perception and Interpretation of Discourse Relations: Studies on “Et” and “Alors” in Spoken French. Discourse Processes 56:8  pp. 619 ff. Crossref logo
Furkó, Péter B.
2020.  In Discourse Markers and Beyond,  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Furkó, Péter B.
2020.  In Discourse Markers and Beyond,  pp. 141 ff. Crossref logo
Kosmala, Loulou, F. Neveu, B. Harmegnies, L. Hriba, S. Prévost & A. Steuckardt
2020. Euh le saviez-vous ? le rôle des (dis)fluences en contexte interactionnel : étude exploratoire et qualitative. SHS Web of Conferences 78  pp. 01018 ff. Crossref logo
Oleškevičienė, Giedrė Valūnaitė, Sigita Rackevičienė, Jolita Šliogerienė, Nijolė Burkšaitienė, Viktorija Mažeikienė, Liudmila Mockienė, Ludivine Crible, Ágnes Abuczki, Šárka Zikánová & Péter B. Furkó
2019.  In Fuzzy Boundaries in Discourse Studies,  pp. 239 ff. Crossref logo
Schubert, Christoph
2019. ‘OK, well, first of all, let me say …’: Discursive uses of response initiators in US presidential primary debates. Discourse Studies 21:4  pp. 438 ff. Crossref logo
Schumann, Jennifer, Sandrine Zufferey & Steve Oswald
2020. The Linguistic Formulation of Fallacies Matters: The Case of Causal Connectives. Argumentation Crossref logo
Toldova, Svetlana, Maria Kobozeva & Dina Pisarevskaya
2018.  In Artificial Intelligence and Natural Language [Communications in Computer and Information Science, 930],  pp. 79 ff. Crossref logo
Torre, Iván G., Bartolo Luque, Lucas Lacasa, Christopher T. Kello & Antoni Hernández-Fernández
2019. On the physical origin of linguistic laws and lognormality in speech. Royal Society Open Science 6:8  pp. 191023 ff. Crossref logo
Wolk, Christoph, Sandra Götz & Katja Jäschke
2020. Possibilities and Drawbacks of Using an Online Application for Semi-automatic Corpus Analysis to Investigate Discourse Markers and Alternative Fluency Variables. Corpus Pragmatics Crossref logo
付, 晓丽
2020. Differentiating Discourse Markers and Metadiscourse. Modern Linguistics 08:03  pp. 396 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 october 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.

Subjects

Art & Art History

Dictionaries
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009030 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Pragmatics
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2017059002 | Marc record