Article published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 42:3 (2018) ► pp. 669707
References

[ p. 702 ]References

Anward, Jan
2004 ‘att’ [‘that’]. Språk och stil 13. 65–85.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira
1978That’s a problem in Hebrew. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Linguistics Department M.A. thesis.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter
2000On line-syntax – oder: Was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der mündlichen Sprache ernst zu nehmen. Sprache und Literatur 85. 43–56.Google Scholar
2005Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25. 7–36.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Why are increments such elusive objects? An afterthought. Pragmatics 17(4). 647–658.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31. 1–13.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Syntactic structures and their symbiotic guests. Notes on analepsis from the perspective of online syntax. Pragmatics 24(3). 533–560.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Émile
1966Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Bergsträsser, G.
1909Das hebräische Präfix še. ZAW 29. 40–56.Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth
1978Modern Hebrew Structure. Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects.Google Scholar
Blau, Yehoshua
1966yesodot hataxbir [Foundations of syntax]. Jerusalem: hamaxon ha’ivri lehaskala bixtav.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2003Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1994Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clift, Rebecca
2007Grammar in time: the non-restrictive ‘which’-clause as an interactional resource. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 55. 51–82.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Tsuyoshi Ono
2007‘Incrementing’ in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German, and Japanese. Pragmatics 17(4). 513–552.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margaret Selting
2017Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia
2016Routes to insubordination: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Nicholas Evans & Honoré Watanabe (eds.), Insubordination, 393–422. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf & Susanne Günthner
(eds.) 2015Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deutscher, Guy
2002The Akkadian relative clauses in cross-linguistic perspective. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 92. 86–105.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W.
2007The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
forthcoming. Representing discourse. Linguistics Department, University of California at Santa Barbara (Fall 2012 version). http://​www​.linguistics​.ucsb​.edu​/projects​/transcription​/representing
Du Bois, John W., Susanna Cumming, Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, & Danae Pao-lino
1992Discourse Transcription: Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, vol. 4. Santa Barbara: Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
[ p. 703 ]
Evans, Nicholas
2007Insubordination and its uses. In Irina Nicolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Honoré Watanabe
(eds.) 2016Insubordination. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, & Sandra A. Thompson
2002Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. & Sandra A. Thompson
1996Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar, 134–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara, Yael Maschler & Susanne Uhmann
2010A cross-linguistic study of self-repair: Evidence from English, German, and Hebrew. Journal of Pragmatics 42(10). 2487–2505.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. & Sandra A. Thompson
2007Relative clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, frequency, and the notion of construction. Studies in Language 31. 293–326.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1979On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne
2011Between emergence and sedimentation: Projecting constructions in German interactions. In Peter Auer & Stephan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 156–185. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014The dynamics of dass-constructions in everyday German interactions – a dialogical perspective. In Susanne Günthner, Wolfgang Imo, and Jörg Bücker (eds.), Grammar and Dialogism, 179–205. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hendery, Rachel
2012Relative Clauses in Time and Space: A case study in the methods of diachronic typology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmstedt, Robert D.
2007The etymologies of Hebrew ašer and še. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 43. 9–28.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
1979Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Talmi Givón (ed.), Discourse and Semantics (Syntax and Semantics, vol. 12), 213–241. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1987Emergent grammar. In Jon Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis & Hana Filip (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13, 139–157. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
1998Emergent grammar. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, 155–175. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2001Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: Prototype or family resemblance? In Martin Pütz, Susanne Neimeier & René Dirven (eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and Language Acquisition, 109–129. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In Peter Auer & Stephan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 22–44. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson
2008Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Ritva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2003Grammaticalization, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 704 ]
Huehnergard, John
2006On the Etymology of the Hebrew Relative še-. In S. E. Fassberg & A. Hurvitz (eds.), Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, 103–125. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
2008Conjunction and sequenced action: The Estonian complementizer and evidential particle et. In Ritva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining. The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, 125–152. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
1972Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin
1968Abstract Syntax and Latin Complementation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Landau, Rachel
1975mishpat hazika umishpat levay hatoxen lesugav ba’ivrit shel yameynu [The relative clause and the attributive content clause in Modern Hebrew]. Bikoret Ufarshanut [Criticism and Interpretation] 7–8. 132–136.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Tsuyoshi Ono
2014The limits of grammar: Clause combining in Finnish and Japanese conversation. Pragmatics 24(3). 561–592.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Eeva-Leena Seppänen
2008Clause combining, interaction, evidentiality, participation structure, and the conjunction-particle continuum: The Finnish että. In Ritva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining. The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, 153–178. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehti-Eklund, Hanna
2002Om att som diskursmarkör [About that as a discourse marker]. Språk och stil 11. 81–118.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene
1991On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society 20. 441–458.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
1968Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael
1994Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society 23. 325–366.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002On the grammaticization of ke’ilu (‘like’, lit. ‘as if’) in Hebrew talk-in-interaction. Language in Society 31. 243–276.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011aOn the emergence of adverbial connectives from Hebrew relative clause constructions. In Peter Auer & Stephan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 293–331. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011b'al hithavutan shel tavniyot min hasiax: mishpaxat psukiyot hazika [On the emergence of constructions from discourse: The case of the family of relative clauses]. Leshonenu (‘Our Language’) 73. 167–207.Google Scholar
2012Emergent Projecting constructions: The case of Hebrew yada (‘know’). Studies in Language 36(4). 785–847.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017The emergence of Hebrew loydea / loydat (‘I dunno masc/fem’) from interaction: Blurring the boundaries between discourse marker, pragmatic marker, and modal particle. In Andrea Sansò & Chiara Fedriani (eds.), Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives, 37–69. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael & Fishman, Stav
. Forthcoming. From multi-clausality to discourse markerhood: The Hebrew ma she- (‘what that’) construction in so-called ‘pseudo-clefts’.
Maschler, Yael & Carmit Miller Shapiro
2016The role of prosody in the grammaticization of Hebrew naxon (‘right/true’): Synchronic and diachronic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 92. 42–73.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael & Bracha Nir
2014Complementation in linear and dialogic syntax: The case of Hebrew divergently aligned discourse. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3). 523–557.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael, Hilla Polak-Yitzhaki, Stav Fishman, Carmit Miller Shapiro, Netanel Goretsky, Gallith Aghion & Ophir Fofliger
[ p. 705 ]
Mertzlufft, Christine & Camilla Wide
2013The on-line emergence of postmodifying att- and dass-clauses in spoken Swedish and German. In Eva Havu & Irma Hyvärinen (eds.), Comparing and Contrasting Syntactic Structures. From Dependency to Quasi-subordination, 199–229. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2008The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 84. 69–119.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Michael
1981Barai clause junctures: Toward a functional theory of interclausal relations. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation.Google Scholar
Ornan, Uzzi
2003The mysteries of waw connective. Zeitschrift fuer die alttestamentlicheWissenschaft 115. 241–255.Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2011Emotion and desire in independent complement clauses: A case study from German. In Mario Brdar, Stefan Th. Gries & Milena Žic Fuchs (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Convergence and Expansion, (Human Cognitive Processing 32), 87–114. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona
2011Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: Projector constructions in French talk-in-interaction. In Ritva Laury & Ryoko Suzuki (eds.), Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 103–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Polak-Yitzhaki, Hilla & Yael Maschler
2016Disclaiming understanding? Hebrew 'ani lo mevin/a (‘I don’t understand masc/fem’) in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 106. 163–183.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1984Pursuing a response. In Maxwell J. Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 152–163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quintilian
. The Institutio oratoria of Quintilian, with an English translation by H. E. Butler. London: W. Heinemann.
Roberts, Murat H.
1944The science of idiom: A method of inquiry into the cognitive design of language. Publications of the Modern Language Association 59. 291–306.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosén, Haiim
1976A Textbook of Israeli Hebrew: With an Introduction to the Classical Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
2006Discourse marker research and theory: Revisiting and. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles, 315–338. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1996Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, & Harvey Sacks
1977The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53. 361–382.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret
2004The ‘upward staircase’ intonation contour in the Berlin vernacular: An example of the analysis of regionalized intonation as an interactional resource. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Cecilia E. Ford (eds.), Sound Patterns in Interaction, 201–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
(eds.) 2001Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A.
2002“Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26. 125–163.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 706 ]
Tsadka, Yitshak
1989taxbir veshixbur [Syntax]. Tel Aviv: Horev.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D.
1984A typology of syntactic relations in clause linkage. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 542–558.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe, Sarah D’Hertefelt & An Van Linden
2012A typology of complement insubordination in Dutch. Studies in Language 36. 123–153.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weinert, Regina
2012Complement clauses in spoken German and English: Syntax, deixis and discourse-pragmatics. Folia Linguistica 46(1). 233–265.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wide, Camilla
2014Constructions as resources in interaction. Syntactically unintegrated att ‘that’-clauses in spoken Swedish. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman & G. Rutten (eds.), Expanding the Scope of Construction Grammar, 353–388. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Zewi, Tamar
2008mishpetey toxen be’ivrit [Content clauses in Hebrew]. Leshonenu [Our Language] 70. 627–657.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Berman, Ruth A.
2020.  In Usage-Based Studies in Modern Hebrew [Studies in Language Companion Series, 210],  pp. 375 ff. Crossref logo
Maschler, Yael
2020.  In Emergent Syntax for Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 32],  pp. 87 ff. Crossref logo
Maschler, Yael & Stav Fishman
2020. From multi-clausality to discourse markerhood: The Hebrew ma she- ‘what that’ construction in pseudo-cleft-like structures. Journal of Pragmatics 159  pp. 73 ff. Crossref logo
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, Yael Maschler, Leelo Keevallik & Jan Lindström
2020.  In Emergent Syntax for Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 32],  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

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