Chapter published in:
Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New perspectives
Edited by Chiara Fedriani and Andrea Sansó
[Studies in Language Companion Series 186] 2017
► pp. 133


Abraham, Werner
2009Die Urmasse von Modalität und ihre Ausgliederung. Modalität anhand von Modalverben, Modalpartikeln und Modus. Was ist das Gemeinsame, was das Trennende, und was steckt dahinter? In Modalität: Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 251–302. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2012Illocutive force is speaker and information source concern. What type of syntax does the representation of speaker deixis require? Templates vs. derivational structure? In Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 67–108. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Certainty. Its conceptual differential. In Certainty-uncertainty – and the Attitudinal Space in Between [Studies in Language Companion Series 165], Sibilla Cantarini, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 29–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner & Elisabeth Leiss
2012Introduction: Theory of mind elements across languages. Traces of Bühler’s legacy in modern linguistics. In Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 1–36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin
1997I think – an English modal particle. In Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives, Toril Swan & Olaf Jansen Westwik (eds), 1–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2015 “Will you fuck off please”. The use of please by London teenagers / “Jódete por favor”. El uso de please por parte de los adolescents londinenses. Pragmatica Sociocultural/Sociocultural Pragmatics 3(2): 127–149.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin & Andersen, Gisle
2012Introducing the pragmatics of society. In Pragmatics of Society, Karin Aijmer & Gisle Andersen (eds), 1–27. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin & Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie
2006Introduction. In Pragmatic Markers in Contrast, Karin Aijmer & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (eds), 1–10. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Andersen, Gisle
2001Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicolas & Lascarides, Alex
2009Commitments, beliefs and intentions in dialogue. Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialog (Longdial), London, 35–42.Google Scholar
Barron, Anne
2008The structure of requests in Irish English and English English. In Schneider & Barron (eds), 35–67.Google Scholar
Barron, Anne & Schneider, Klaus P.
(eds) 2005The Pragmatics of Irish English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla
2006Discourse markers in Italian: Towards a compositional meaning. In Fischer (ed.), 449–464.Google Scholar
2011Segnali discorsivi. In Enciclopedia dell’italiano. Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana Giovanni Treccani.Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate
2016Pragmatic Markers in British English: Meaning in Social Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate & Detges, Ulrich
(eds) 2014Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berruto, Gaetano
1995Fondamenti di sociolinguistica. Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
1987Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana & House, Juliane
1989Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behavior. In Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Requests and Apologies, Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper (eds), 123–154. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J.
1990The development of discourse markers in English. In Historical Linguistics and Philology, Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 45–71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001Historical discourse analysis. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton (eds), 138–160. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2008The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William
1994The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco
2012Modal particles, speaker-hearer links, and illocutionary force. In Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 253–296. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, Maria Josep
2013The fuzzy boundaries between discourse marking and modal marking. In Degand et al. (eds), 191–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
(ed) 2011 Historical Sociopragmatics . Special issue of Journal of Historical Pragmatics 10(2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Archer, Dawn
2008Requests and directenss in Early Modern English trial proceedings and play-texts, 1640–1760. In Speech Acts in the History of English [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 176], Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds), 45–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, Cornillie, Bert & Pietrandrea, Paola
(eds) 2013Discourse Markers and Modal Particles. Categorization and Description [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 234]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Detges, Ulrich & Waltereit, Richard
2016Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance, Susann Fischer & Christoph Gabriel (eds), 635–658. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
2013 Same same but different – Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In Degand et al. (eds), 19–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dostie, Gaétane
2009Discourse markers and regional variation in French: A lexico-semantic approach. In Sociolinguistic Variation in Contemporary French [Impact: Studies in Language and Society 26], Kate Beeching, Nigel Armstrong & Françoise Gadet (eds), 201–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope
2014Stylistic innovation and indexical obsolescence. Talk given at NWAV 43 at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope & Wenger, Étienne
2005Communities of practice in sociolinguistics: What is the role of power in sociolinguistic variation? Journal of Sociolinguistics 9(4): 582–589. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferri, Rolando
2008Politeness in Latin comedy: Some preliminary thoughts. Materiali e Discussioni per l’Analisi dei Testi Classici 61: 15–28.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin
2006aApproaches to Discourse Particles [Studies in Pragmatics 1]. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
2006bTowards an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to discourse particles. In Fischer (ed.), 1–20.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin & Alm, Maria
2013A radical construction grammar perspective on the modal particle-discourse particle distinction. In Degand et al. (eds), 47–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
1999What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931–952. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Towards a theory of discourse markers. In Fischer (ed.), 189–204.Google Scholar
Ghezzi, Chiara
2014The development of discourse and pragmatic markers. In Ghezzi & Molinelli (eds), 10–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ghezzi, Chiara & Molinelli, Piera
2014aDeverbal pragmatic markers from Latin to Italian (Lat. quaeso and It. prego): The cyclic nature of functional developments. In Ghezzi & Molinelli (eds), 60–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(eds) 2014bDiscourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt M.
2006A dynamic polysemy approach to the lexical semantics of discourse markers (with an exemplary analysis of French toujours) . In Fischer (ed.), 21–41.Google Scholar
2009The grammaticalization of negative reinforcers in Old and Middle French: A discourse-functional approach. In Current Trends in Diachronic Semantics and Pragmatics, Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen & Jacqueline Visconti (eds), 227–251. Bingley: Emerald. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt M. & Rossari, Corinne
2005The evolution of pragmatic markers. Introduction. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6(2): 177–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt M. & Visconti, Jacqueline
2009On the diachrony of reinforced negation in French and Italian. In Grammaticalization and Pragmatics. Facts, Approaches, Theoretical Issues, Corinne Rossari, Claudia Ricci & Adriana Spiridon (eds), 137–171. Bingley: Emerald. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012The evolution of negation in French and Italian: Similarities and differences. Folia Linguistica 46: 453–482. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
2002On the role of context in grammaticalization. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51(6): 1205–1247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania
2002World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, Tilman
1992Über Verum Fokus in Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 60: 20–45.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet
1997Women, language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 1(2): 195–223. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
House, Juliane
2012Global and intercultural communication. In Pragmatics of Society, Karin Aijmer & Gisle Andersen (eds), 607–626. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Izutsu, Katsunobu & Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita
2013From discourse markers to modal/final particles. What the position reveals about the continuum. In Degand et al. (eds), 217–236.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H.
1997The discourse marker well in the history of English. English Language and Linguistics 1(1): 91–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In Alternative Histories of English, Peter Trudgill & Richard J. Watts (eds), 210–230. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2011Historical speech act analysis: Greetings and farewells. In Proceedings of Anglistentag 2010 Saarbrücken, Joachim Frenk & Lena Steveker (eds), 397–406. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Taavitsainen, Irma
2012Diachronic speech act analysis: Insults from flyting to flaming. In Corpus Linguistics, Vol. II: Grammar, Douglas Biber & Randi Reppen (eds), 237–260. Los Angeles CA: Sage. Reprinted from Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(1): 67–95.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania
2011On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4): 848–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lech, Peter G. Barrios
2016Linguistic Interaction in Roman Comedy. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
1999The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. In Out of Corpora. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, Hilde Hasselgård & Signe Oksefjell (eds), 107–118. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth
2012Epistemicity, evidentiality, and Theory of Mind (ToM). In Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 39–65. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Modes of modality in an un-Cartesian framework. In Certainty-uncertainty – and the Attitudinal Space in Between [Studies in Language Companion Series 165], Sibilla Cantarini, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 47–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lewis, Diane
2006Discourse markers in English: A discourse-pragmatic view. In Fischer (ed.), 43–59.Google Scholar
Lutzky, Ursula
2012Discourse Markers in Early Modern English [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 227]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maché, Jakob
2012Exploring the Theory of Mind interface. In Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 109–146. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael
1994Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society 23: 325–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael & Schiffrin, Deborah
2015Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd edn, Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds), 189–221. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron
1998Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics 36: 281–331. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Fusion and the cognitive basis for bilingual discourse markers. International Journal of Bilingualism 4: 505–528. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mazzon, Gabriella
2012 Now what? The analysis of Middle English discourse markers and advances in historical dialogue studies. In The Use and Development of Middle English, Richard Dance & Laura Wright (eds), 61–86. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Meinl, Marja E.
2014Electronic Complaints: An Empirical Study on British English and German Complaints. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Meisnitzer, Benjamin
2012Modality in the Romance languages. In Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 335–359. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mendoza-Denton, Norma
2008Homegirls: Language and Cultural Practice among Latina Youth Gangs. Maiden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, Leslie
2002Social networks. In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, Jack K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds), 549–572. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Norén, Kerstin & Linell, Per
2007Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and contexts: An empirical substantiation. Pragmatics 17(3): 387–416. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Placencia, María Elena
2008Requests in corner shop transactions in Ecuadorian Andean and Coastal Spanish. In Schneider & Barron (eds), 307–332.Google Scholar
Pons Bordería, Salvador
2006A functional approach to discourse markers. In Fischer (ed.), 77–99.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1997The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Klaus P. & Barron, Anne
(eds) 2008Variational Pragmatics [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 178]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
2006Discourse marker research and theory: Revisiting and . In Fischer (ed.), 315–338.Google Scholar
Schölmberger, Ursula
2008Apologizing in French French and Canadian French. In Schneider & Barron (eds), 333–354.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A.
2003 No and Tampoco: A pragmatic distinction in Spanish negation. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 999–1030. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005The pragmatics of negation in Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua 115: 1427–1456. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Fine-tuning Jespersen’s cycle. In Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning. Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn [Studies in Language Companion Series 80], Betty J. Birner & Gregory Ward (eds), 327–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Squartini, Mario
2013From TAM to discourse. The role of information status in North-Western Italian già ‘already’. In Degand et al. (eds), 163–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
1995Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Subjectivity and Subjectivisation, Dieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds), 37–54. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trosborg, Anna
1995Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Visconti, Jacqueline
2009From ‘textual’ to ‘interpersonal’: On the diachrony of the Italian particle mica . Journal of Pragmatics 41: 937–950. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, Richard
2001Modal particles and their functional equivalents: a speech-act-theoretic approach. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1391–1417. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006The rise of discourse markers in Italian: A specific type of language change. In Fischer (ed.), 61–76.Google Scholar
Waltereit, Richard & Detges, Ulrich
2007Different functions, different histories. Modal particles and discourse markers from a diachronic point of view. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 61–80.Google Scholar
Warga, Muriel
2008Requesting in German as a pluricentric language. In Schneider & Barron (eds), 245–266.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

Ivanová, Martina
2018. Pragmatický Marker Fair Enough A Jeho Prekladové Ekvivalenty V Anglicko­Slovenskom Paralelnom Korpuse. Journal of Linguistics/Jazykovedný casopis 69:3  pp. 395 ff. Crossref logo
Jeppesen Kragh, Kirsten
2021. Proposition d’une classification des marqueurs discursifs comme membres d’un paradigme. Langue française N° 209:1  pp. 119 ff. Crossref logo
Kocsány, Piroska
2021. Az ott szokatlan szerepei. Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat 8:1  pp. 47 ff. Crossref logo
Magliacane, Annarita
2020. Erasmus students in an Irish studyabroad context. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education 5:1  pp. 89 ff. Crossref logo
Marmorstein, Michal
2021. Discourse markers as a lens to variation across speech and writing. Functions of Language 28:2  pp. 153 ff. Crossref logo
Van Olmen, Daniël & Jolanta Šinkūnienė
2021.  In Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 325],  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Waltereit, Richard
2020.  In Information-Structural Perspectives on Discourse Particles [Studies in Language Companion Series, 213],  pp. 178 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 2022. 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.