Chapter published in:
Information-Structural Perspectives on Discourse Particles
Edited by Pierre-Yves Modicom and Olivier Duplâtre
[Studies in Language Companion Series 213] 2020
► pp. 252276
References

References

Abraham, Werner
1991Discourse particles in German: How does their illocutive force come about? In Discourse Particles: Descriptive and Theoretical Investigations on the Logical, Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of Discourse Particles in German [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 12], Werner Abraham (ed.), 203–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
AnderBois, Scott
2019Negation, alternatives, and negative polar questions in American English. In Questions in Discourse, Klaus von Heusinger, Edgar Onea & Malte Zimmerman (eds), 118–171. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel & Gunlogson, Christine
2000Aren’t positive and negative polar questions the same? Ms. https://​semanticsarchive​.net​/Archive​/mYwOGNhO​/polar​_questions​.pdf> (14 October 2019).
Clauson, Gerard
1972“ka:ñu:” In An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-thirteenth-century Turkish , p. 632. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Ariel & Krifka, Manfred
2011Superlative quantifiers as modifiers of meta-speech acts. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 6: 1–56.Google Scholar
Egg, Markus
2010A unified account of the semantics of discourse particles. In Proceedings of SIGDIAL 2010, 132–138.Google Scholar
2012Discourse particles at the semantics-pragmatics interface. In Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 297–333. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erguvanlı Taylan, Eser
2000Semi-grammaticalized modality in Turkish. In Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages, Aslı Göksel & Celia Kerslake (eds), 113–143. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
2009An Account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics (1): 1–27.Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı, Kelepir, Meltem & Üntak-Tarhan, Aslı
2009Decomposition of question intonation: The structure of response seeking utterances. In Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations, Janet Grijzenhout & Barış Kabak (eds), 249–296. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy
2004On the meaning and intonation of polar questions. Talk given at the UBC Colloquium.
Hudson, Richard A.
1975The meaning of questions. Language 51: 1–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karagjosova, Elena
2004The Meaning and Function of German Modal Particles. PhD dissertation, Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
Kelepir, Meltem
2001Topics in Turkish Syntax: Clausal Structure and Scope. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard
1997Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: Ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie. Germanistische Linguistik 136: 57–75.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
2008Basic notions of infomation structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3–4): 243–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017Negated polarity questions as denegations of assertions. In Contrastiveness in Information Structure, Alternatives and Scalar Implicatures, Chungmin Lee, Ferenc Kiefer & Manfred Krifka (eds), 359–398. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, Robert D.
1981A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. In Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Robera A. Hendrick, Carrie S. Masek & Mary Frances Miller (eds), 164–171. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Özge, Duygu, Marinis, Theodoros & Zeyrek, Deniz
2010Production of relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Proceedings Supplement, Jane Chandlee, Katie Franich, Kate Iserman & Lauren Keil (eds). Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Romero, Maribel & Han, Chung-Hye
2004On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics & Philosophy 27: 609–658. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze & Matthewson, Lisa
2012Epistemic modals can scope under past tense. Paper presented at the Texas Linguistic Society, 24 June. http://​tls​.ling​.utexas​.edu​/2012tls​/handouts​/tls13​_rullmann​_slides​.pdf> (14 October 2019).
Stalnaker, Robert
2002Common ground. Linguistics & Philosophy 25: 701–721. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sudo, Yasutada
2013Biased polar questions in English and Japanese. In Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-Conditional Meaning, Daniel Gutzmann & Hans-Martin Gärtner, 275–295. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, Kai & Gillies, Anthony S.
2008CIA leaks. The Philosophical Review 17(1): 77–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zeevat, Henk
2004Particles: Presupposition triggers, context markers, or speech act markers? In Optimality Theory and Pragmatics, Reinhard Blutner & Henk Zeevat (eds), 91–111. Houndmills: Palgrave. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde
2008Negative concord is syntactic agreement. Ms, University of Amsterdam. <ling​.auf​.net​/lingbuzz​/000645​/current​.pdf> (14 October 2019).
Zimmermann, Malte
2011Discourse particles. In Semantics: an international handbook of natural language meaning, Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds) 2011–2038 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar