Part of
Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology
Edited by Luca Alfieri, Giorgio Francesco Arcodia and Paolo Ramat
[Typological Studies in Language 132] 2021
► pp. 59100
Ambar, Manuela
1999Aspects of focus in Portuguese. In The Grammar of Focus [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 24], George Rebuschi & Laurie Tuller (eds), 23–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen
1971On the Linguistic Status of the Performative/Constative Distinction. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Austin, John
1962How to do Things with Words. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Beyssade, Claire & Marandin, Jean-Marie
2006The speech act assignment problem revisited: Disentangling speaker’s commitment from speaker’s call on addressee. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6, Olivier Bonami Patricia & Cabredo Hofherr (eds), 37–68. [URL]
Bhat, Darbhe Narayana Shankara
2013Third person pronouns and demonstratives. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds), Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (30 August 2019).Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2010Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. In Clause Hierarchy and Clause Linking: Syntax and Pragmatics [Studies in Language Companion Series 121], Isabelle Bril (ed.), 51–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011Multivariate typology and field linguistics: A case study on detransitivization in Kiranti (Sino-Tibetan). In Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory 3, Peter K. Austin, Oliver Bong, Lutz Marten & David Nathan (eds), 3–13. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz
1991Introduction. In Handbook of American Indian Languages, Vol. 1 [Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40–1], Franz Boas (ed.). Washington DC: Government Printing OfficeGoogle Scholar
Ceong, Hailey Hyekyeong
2019The Morphosyntax of Clause Typing: Single, Double, Periphrastic, and Multifunctional Complementizers in Korean. PhD dissertation, University of Victoria.
Chappell, Hilary & Peyraube, Alain
2016Modality and mood in sinitic. In The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood, Jan Nuyts & Johan van der Auwera (eds), 296–339. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1965Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1986Barriers. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1999Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1989Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco & Zegrean, Iulia
2010Splitting up force evidence from discourse particles. Linguistics 20: 7–34.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G.
1999Prototypical inflection: Implications for typology. In Yearbook of Morphology 1998, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 1–22. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009Canonical inflectional classes. In Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décenbrettes: Morphology in Bordeaux, Fabio Montermini, Gilles Boyé & Jesse Tseng (eds), 1–11. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
2015Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits. Language 91: 145–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. & Fedden, Sebastian
2016Canonical gender. Journal of Linguistics 52: 495–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2001Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & Poole, Keith T.
2008Inferring universals from grammatical variation: Multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical Linguistics 34(1): 1–38. DOI logo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, Christopher
2011Constraining Interpretation: Sentence Final Particles in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Dingemanse, Mark
2018Redrawing the margins of language: Lessons from research on ideophones. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 4. DOI logo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Torreira, Francisco & Enfield, Nicholas J.
2013Is ‘Huh?’ a universal word? Conversational infrastructure and the convergent evolution of linguistic items. PLOS ONE, 9(4). DOI logo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark
2020Between sound and speech: Liminal signs in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 53(1): 188–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
1997Are grammatical relations universal ? In Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givòn, Joan L. Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 115–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Etxepare, Ricardo
1997The Grammatical Representation of Speech Events. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen C.
2009The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5): 429–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Bergqvist, Henrik & San Roque, Lila
2017aThe grammar of engagement, I: framework and initial exemplification. Language and Cognition 10(1): 1–31Google Scholar
2017bThe grammar of engagement II: Typology and diachrony. Language and Cognition 10(1): 141–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
1974An examination of the performative analysis. Papers in Linguistics 7: 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fujimori, Atsushi
2011The correspondence between vowel quality and verbal telicity in Yamato-Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.
Gold, Elaine & Tremblay, Mireille
2006 Eh? and hein? Discourse particles or national icons? Canadian Journal of Linguistics 51(2–3): 247–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane
2014West flemish verb-based discourse markers and the articulation of the speech act layer. Studia Linguistica 68(1): 116–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Hill, Virginia
2013The syntacticization of discourse. In Syntax and its Limits, Raffaella Folli, Christina Sevdali & Robert Truswell (eds), 370–390. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Hill, Virgina
2014Vocatives and speech act projections: A case study in West Flemish. In On Peripheries. Exploring Clause Initial and Clause Final Positions, Anna Cardinaletti, Guglielmo Cinque & Yoshio Endo (eds), 209–236. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1997Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2007Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 119–132. DOI logo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86: 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Johannes
2019 Commitment and Engagement: The Role of Intonation in Deriving Speech Acts. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.
Heim, Johannes, Keupdjio, Hermann, Lam, Zoe Wai-Mam, Osa-Gómez, Adriana, Thoma, Sonja & Wiltschko, Martina
Intonation and particles as speech act modifiers: A syntactic analysis. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 37(2): 109–129. DOI logo
Heritage, John
1998Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society 27: 291–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Virginia
2007Vocatives and the pragmatics–syntax interface. Lingua 117: 2077–2105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet
1983The functions of tag questions. English Language Research Journal 3: 40–65.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A.
1985The iconicity of the universal categories ‘noun’ and ‘verb’. In Iconicity in Syntax [Typological Studies in Language 6], John Haiman (ed.), 151–183. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joos, Martin
1957Readings in Linguistics: The Development of Descriptive Linguistics in America since 1925. Washington DC: American Council of Learned Societies.Google Scholar
Kwon, Iksoo
2011Mental spaces in the Korean reportive/quotative evidentiality marker-ay. Discourse and Cognition 18(2): 23–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1991Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
1976Metalanguage, pragmatics and performatives. In Semantics: Theory and Application, Cléa Rameh (ed.), 81–98. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth
2005Submorphematische Motiviertheit als Grammatikalisierungsergebnis: Zur Grammatikalisierung von Reflexivpronomen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 32: 233–244.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. & Torreira, Francisco
2015Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N., Thompson, Sandra A. & Zhang, Bojiang
1998Cong huayu jiaodu lunzheng yuqici ‘de’ (On modal particle ‘de’ from the perspective of conversation). Zhongguo Yuwen (Chinese Linguistics) 2: 93–102Google Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita
1976Grammar and illocutionary force. Lingua 40: 21–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J.
2007Linguistic typology requires crosslinguistic formal categories. Linguistic Typology 11: 133–157. DOI logo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, R. & Sadler, L
2004Nominal tense in crosslinguistic perspective. Language 776–806. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, Waltraud
2014Why particles are not particular: Sentence-final particles in Chinese as heads of a split CP. Studia Linguistica 68: 77–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1984Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds), 57–107. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elisabeth & Wiltschko, Martina
2014The composition of INFL. An exploration of tense, tenseless languages and tenseless constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 1331–1386. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian G. & Roussou, Anna
2003Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R.
1970On declarative sentences. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 222–272. Waltham MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Speas, Peggy & Tenny, Carol
2003Configurational properties of point of view roles. Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol. 1: Syntax and Semantics [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 57], Anna Maria Di Sciullo (ed.), 315–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers Tania, Enfield, Nicholas J., Brown, Penelope, Englert, Christina, Hayashi, Makoto et al.
2009Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 10587–10592. DOI logo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thoma, Sonja C.
2016Discourse particles and the syntax of discourse-evidence from Miesbach Bavarian. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.
Tonhauser, Judith
2007Nominal tense? The meaning of Guaraní nominal temporal markers. Language 83(4): 831–869. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert
2012Semantics of intonation. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 3, Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds), 2039–2069. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wakefield, John
2010The English Equivalents of Cantonese Sentence-final Particles: A Contrastive Analysis. PhD dissertation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
2012A floating tone discourse morpheme: The English equivalent of Cantonese lo1 . Lingua 122: 1739–1762. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Fang
2009“‘Ma’ de yuqi yiyi shuolyue” (A brief introduction of the pragmatic meaning of ma). Journal of Changchun University of Science and Technology (Higher Education Edition) 4(11): 90–92.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory L. & Hirschberg, Julia
1985Implicating uncertainty: The pragmatics of fall-rise intonation. Language 61: 747–776. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1986Reconciling uncertainty with incredulity: A unified account of the L*+H LH% intonational contour. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New York, 27–30 December.
Wiltschko, Martina
2003On the interpretability of tense on D and its consequences for case theory. Lingua 113: 659–696. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004On number in Halkomelem Salish or The problem with “the two man’ . In Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of the Americas (WSCLA IX) [UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 15], Christine Ravinski & Yunhee Chung (eds), 143–158. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
2014The Universal Structure of Categories: Toward a Formal Typology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017Ergative constellations in the structure of speech acts. In The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa deMena Travis (eds), 419–446. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina & Heim, Johannes
2016The syntax of confirmationals. In Outside the Clause: Form and Function of Extra-Clausal Constituents [Studies in Language Companion Series 178], Gunther Kaltenbock, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds), 305–340. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina, Denis, Derek & D’Arcy, Alexandra
2018Deconstructing variation in pragmatic function: A transdisciplinary case study. Language in Society 47: 569–599. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina
In preparation. The Grammar of Interactional Language. Towards a typology of discourse markers. Cambridge: CUP.
Zu, Vera
2015A two-tiered theory of the discourse. In Proceedings of the Poster Session of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 151–160. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar