Article published in:
Pragmatics
Vol. 21:3 (2011) ► pp. 307340

Full-text

Inferentials in spoken English
References
Aijmer, K.
(2002) English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Studies in corpus linguistics 10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J.L.
(1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Barlow, M.
(2010) How to distinguish individual speakers: A corpus-based investigation of idiolects. Manuscript.
Bearth, T.
(1997) Inferential and counter-inferential grammatical markers in Swahili dialogue. In E.M. Beck, T. Geider, W. Graebner, and I. Heine (eds.), Swahili forum. Cologne: Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
(1999) The inferential gap condition. Pragmatics 9: 249-288.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bender, E., and D. Flickinger
(1999) Diachronic evidence for extended argument structure. In G. Bouma, E.W. Hinrichs, G.M. Kruijff, and R. Oehrle (eds.), Constraints and resources in natural language syntax and semantics. G. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 1-19.Google Scholar
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, and E. Finegan
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D.
(2002) Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2004) Discourse markers. In L.R. Horn and G. Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 221-240.Google Scholar
Blass, R.
(1990) Relevance relations in discourse: A study with special reference to Sissala. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 55, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Calude, A.
(2009a) Cleft constructions in spoken English. Berlin: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
(2009b) Formulaic tendencies of demonstrative clefts in spoken English. In R. Corrigan, E.A. Moravcsik, H. Quali, and K.M. Wheatley (eds.), Formulaic language: Volume 1. Distribution and historical cxhange. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 55-76. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Calude, A., and G. Delahunty
(2010) Inferentials: Fixed or not? Paper presented at The international conference on fixed phrases in English . October 22-24, University of Perpignan, Via Domitia.
Calude, A., and S. Miller
(2009) Are clefts contagious in conversation? English Language and Linguistics. 13: 127-132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collins, P.
(1991) Cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions in English. London: Routledge. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., and E. Sweetser
(2005) Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, R.
(1988) Studies on copular sentences, clefts and pseudo-clefts. Foris: Leuven. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1992) The inferential it is that-construction and its congeners. Lingua 87: 203-230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delahunty, G.
(1990) Inferentials: The story of a forgotten evidential. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 1-28.Google Scholar
(1995) The inferential construction. Pragmatics 5: 341-364.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Discourse functions of inferential sentences. Linguistics 39: 517-545. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2006) A relevance theoretic analysis of not that sentences: “Not that there is anything wrong with that.” Pragmatics 16: 213-245.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delahunty, G., and L. Gatzkiewicz
(2000) On the Spanish inferential construction ser que . Pragmatics 10: 301-322.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R.
(1989) A cognitive perspective on complementation. In D. Jaspers, Y. Putseys, W. Klooster and P. Seuren (eds.), Sentential complementation and the lexicon: Studies in honour of Wim de Geest. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 113-139.Google Scholar
Doherty, M.
(2001) Discourse functions and language-specific conditions for the use of cleft{-like} sentences: A prelude. Linguistics39.3: 457-362. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Edmonds, A.
(2010) On the representation of conventional expressions in L1-English and L2-French. Ph.D. dissertation, Departments of French and Italian and Linguistics, Indiana University.
Fraser, B.
(1990) An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 383-395. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1996) Pragmatic markers. http://​people​.bu​.edu​/bfraser/  BoP
(1999) What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931-952. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2005) Towards a theory of discourse markers. http://​people​.bu​.edu​/bfraser/
García, F.G.
(2007) That’s a construction for you/las construccionnes es lo que tiene(n): Grammatica- lization via subjectification in attributive clauses in English and Spanish. Journal of English Studies 7: 65-99.Google Scholar
Gundel, J.K., N. Hedberg, and R. Zacharski
(1993) Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274-307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1987) Spoken and written modes of meaning. In R. Horowitz and S.J. Samuels (eds.), Comprehending oral and written language. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 55-82.Google Scholar
Hedberg, N.A.
(2000) The referential status of clefts. Language 76: 891–920. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heggie, L.A.
(1998) The syntax of copular structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
Holmes, J., B. Vine, and B.G. Johnson
(1998) Guide to the Wellington corpus of spoken New Zealand English. Wellington, New Zealand: School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies: Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
Hopper, P., and S.A. Thompson
(2008) Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Laury Ritva (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 99-123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L.
(1989) A natural history of negation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R.
(1984) Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., and G. Pullum
(2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S.
(2006) Phraseology and system: A contribution to the debate. In G. Thompson and S. Hunston (eds.), System and corpus. 55-80. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Koops, C.
(2007) Constraints on inferential constructions. In G. Radden, K.M. Kopcke, T. Berg, and P. Siemund (eds.), Aspects of meaning construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 207-224. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Laury, R.
(2006) On subordination, Finnish-style: Questioning the category of finite clausal complements in spoken Finnish. SKY Journal of Linguistics 19: 310–321.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K.
(2001) A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39: 463–516. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1974) Movement rules in a functional perspective. Language 50: 630–664. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.
(2001) Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lindemann, S., and A. Mauranen
(2001) “It’s just real messy”: The occurrence and function of just in a corpus of academic speech. English for Special Purposes 20: 459-475. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
López-Couso, M. and B. Méndez-Naya
in press) On the use of as if, as though, and like in present-day English complementation structures. Journal of English Studies.
McCawley, J.D.
(1988) The syntactic phenomena of English. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Miller, J., and R. Weinert
(1998/2009) Spontaneous spoken language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., and F.H. Syder
(1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Jack C. Richards and Richard W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and Communication. London: Longman, pp. 191-225.Google Scholar
Pusch, C.
(2006) Marqueurs discursifs et subordination syntaxique: La construction inférentielle en français et dans d'autres langues romanes. In M. Drescher and B. Frank-Job (eds.), Les marqueurs discursifs dans les langues Romanes: Approches théoriques et méthodologiques. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 173-188.Google Scholar
forthcoming) Pragmatic markers involving subordination in Romance: Do they structure discourse or comment on it?
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik
(1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London, New York: Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S., and D. Lange
(1991) The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech 66: 227-279. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Rooryck, J.
(2000) Configurations of sentential complementation: Perspectives from Romance languages. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A.
(2010) Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Hans C. Boas and Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, pp. 39-160. http://​lingo​.stanford​.edu​/sag​/papers​/theo​-syno​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H-J.
(2009) Rare but contextually entrenched: The English not-that construction. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English , University of London, UK.
Sperber, D., and D. Wilson
(1986/1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cornwall: Blackwell Publishing.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Stirling, L.
(1999) Isolated if-clauses in Australian English. In P. Collins and D. Lee (eds.), The clause in English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 273-294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J.R., and K.Y. Pang
(2008) Seeing as though. English Language and Linguistics 12: 103-139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S.A.
(2002) “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26: 125-164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vallaurí, E.L.
(2004) Grammaticalization of syntactic incompleteness: Free conditionals in Italian and other languages. SKY Journal of Linguistics 17: 189–215.Google Scholar
Wray, A.
(2002) Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2008) Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zemskaja, E.
(1973) Russkaj razgovornaja reč’. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Delahunty, Gerald P.
2012. An analysis of The thing is that S sentences. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 22:1  pp. 41 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 2021. 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.