Pragmatic markers

Karin Aijmer & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen
Table of contents

Conversations in English contain a lot of small words such as well, you know, I mean, sort of which have been referred to as pragmatic markers. Although they have recently received a great deal of attention, our understanding of the class of pragmatic markers is still incomplete. To start with, it is difficult to choose among different approaches, terminologies and classifications. A recent monograph describes the state of art in this field of research as follows:

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Aijmer, K.
1997  I think – an English modal particle. In T. Swan & O. Jansen Westvik (eds.) Modality in Germanic lanaguages: Historical and comparative perspectives: 1–47. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
2002 English discourse particles. Evidence from a corpus. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 The meaning and functions of the Swedish discourse marker alltså–Evidence from translation corpora. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 31–59. Google Scholar
2009 The pragmatic marker well: a text study. In Coherence and cohesion in spoken and written discourse, edited by O. Dontcheva-Navratilova and R. Povolná. Cambridge: Cambridge Scolars Publishing. 4–29. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K., A. Foolen & A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen
2006 Pragmatic markers in translation: a methodological proposal. In K. Fischer (ed.): 101–114. Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. & A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen
2003  Well in English, Swedish and Dutch. Linguistics 41(6): 1123–1161. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
2004 A model and a methodology for the study of pragmatic markers: The semantic field of expectation. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1781–1805. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(eds.) 2006 Pragmatic markers in contrast.Elsevier. Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A.Y.
2004 Evidentiality. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Albrecht, J.
1976 Les équivalents de l’allemand eigentlich dans les dictionnaires bilingues et dans la réalité de l’usage. Cahiers de lexicologie 32(1): 60–73. Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. & K. Aijmer
2001 The English-Swedish Parallel Corpus: A resource for contrastive research and translation studies. In C. Mair & M. Hundt (eds.) Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory. Papers from the 20th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20) Freiburg im Breisgau 1999: 15–33. Rodopi. Google Scholar
2002 Zero translations and cross-linguistic equivalence: evidence from the English-Swedish Parallel Corpus. In L.-E. Breivik & A. Hasselgren (eds.) From the COLT's mouth … and others’. Language corpora studies in honour of Anna-Brita Stenström: 19–41. Rodopi. Google Scholar
Andersen, G.
2001 Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation. Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Andersen, G. & T. Fretheim
(eds.) 2000 Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude. Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Andersson, L.-G.
1976 Talaktsadverbial. Nysvenska studier 56: 25–46. Google Scholar
Ariel, M.
1998 Discourse markers and form-function correlations. In A. Jucker & Y. Ziv (eds.): 223–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arndt, W.
1960 Modal particles in Russian and German. Word 16(3): 323–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bazzanella, C.
1990 Phatic connectives as interactional cues in contemporary spoken Italian. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 629–647. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
2006 Discourse markers in Italian: towards a ‘compositional meaning’. In K. Fischer (ed.): 449–464. Google Scholar
Bazzanella, C. & L. Morra
2000 Discourse markers and the indeterminacy of translation. In I. Korzen & C. Marello (eds.) Argomenti per una linguistica della traduzione. On linguistic aspects of translation. Notes pour une linguistique de la traduction: 149–157. Edizioni dell'Orso. Google Scholar
Bazzanella, C., C. Bosco, A. Garcea, B.G. Fivela, J. Miecznikowski & F.T. Brunozzi
2007 Italian allora, French alors: Functions, convergences and divergences. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 9–30. Google Scholar
Bernstein, B.
1974 Classes, codes and control. Routledge and Kegan Paul. Google Scholar
Bertin, A.
2002 L’émergence du connecteur en effet en moyen français. Linx 46(1): 37–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D.
1987 Semantic constraints on relevance. Blackwell. Google Scholar
1992 Understanding utterances. Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Blass, R.
1990 Relevance relations in discourse. A study with special reference to Sissala. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L.
1996 Pragmatic markers in English. Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
2008 The comment clause in English. Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Briz, A.
1993a Los conectores pragmáticos en español coloquial. I: Su papel argumentativo. Contextos 11: 145–188. Google Scholar
1993b Los conectores pragmáticos en la conversación coloquial. II. Su papel metadiscursivo. Español actual 59: 39–56. Google Scholar
Brown, P. & S.C. Levinson
1987 Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Bruti, S.
1999  In fact and infatti: The same, similar or different. Pragmatics 9(4): 519–533.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buysse, L.
2007 Discourse marker so in the English of Flemish university students. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures (BELL), New Series 5: 79–95. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Carlson, L.
1984 Well’ in dialogue games: A discourse analysis of the interjection ‘well’ in idealized conversation. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Celle, A.
1999 Now, nun, jetzt,. In J. Guillemin-Flescher & A. Deschamps (eds.) Les Opérations de Détermination, quantification / qualification: 131–148. Ophrys. Google Scholar
Chafe, W. & J. Nichols
(eds.) 1986 Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Ablex.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Chaume, F.
2004 Discourse markers in audiovisual translating. Meta 49(4): 843–855. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Corum, C.
1975 A pragmatic analysis of parenthetic adjuncts. In R.E. Grossman et al. (eds.) Papers from the Eleventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: 131–141. Chicago Linguistic Society.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, M.-J.
2008 well. Journal of Pragmatics 40(8): 1373–1391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. & M. Kytö
1999 Modifying pragmatic force: Hedges in a corpus of Early Modern English dialogues. In A. Jucker, G. Fritz & F. Lebsanft (eds.) Historical dialogue analysis: 293–312. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dailey-O'cain, J.
2000 The sociolinguistic distribution of and attitudes toward focuser ‘like’ and quotative ‘like’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(1): 60–80. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Davidsen-Nielsen, N.
1996 Discourse particles in Danish. In E. Engberg Pedersen, M. Fortescue, P. Harder, L. Heltoft & L. Falster Jacobsen (eds.) Content, expression and structure. Studies in Danish Functional Grammar: 283–314. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cock, S.
2004 Preferred sequences of words in NS and NNS speech. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures (BELL), New Series 2: 225–246. Google Scholar
Defour, T.
2008 And so now…’.In T. Nevalainen, I. Taavitsainen, P. Pahta & M. Korhonen (eds.) The Dynamics of linguistic variation. Corpus evidence on English past and present: 187–36. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
forthcoming. well. In H. Cuyckens, K. Davidse & L. Vandelanotte (eds.) Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (Topics in English Linguistics) Mouton  BoP
Degand, L. & A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen
(eds.) forthcoming Grammaticalization, Pragmaticalization and/or (inter)Subjectification: Methodological issues for the study of discourse markers Thematic issue of Linguistics
De Klerk, V.
2005 Procedural meanings of ‘well’ in a corpus of Xhosa English. Journal of Pragmatics 37(8): 1183–1205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denniston, J.D.
1934 The Greek particles. Clarendon. Google Scholar
Dines, E.R.
1980 Variation in discourse—‘and stuff like that’. Language in Society 9: 13–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dostie, G.
2004 Pragmaticalisation et marqueurs discursifs : analyse sémantique et traitement lexicographique. Champs linguistiques. De Boeck Duculot. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Downing, A.
2006 The English pragmatic marker surely and its functional counterpart in Spanish. In K. Aijmer & A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds.): 39–58. Google Scholar
DrescherM. & B. Frank-Job
2006 Les marqueurs discursifs dans les langues romanes: approches théoriques et méthodologiques. Lang. Google Scholar
Dubois, S.
1993 Extension particles, etc. Language Variation and Change 4: 179–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, M.
1988  Ju, väl, då, va, alltså. En undersökning av talaktsadverbial i stockholmskt talspråk. In A. Schenström & M. Eriksson (eds.) Studier i stockholmsspråk: 75–120. (MINS). Institutionen för nordiska språk, Stockholms universitet. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992 Ett fall av grammatikalisering i modern svenska: ba i ungdomars talspråk. FUMS rapport 166. Uppsala. Google Scholar
Erman, B.
1987 Pragmatic expressions in English: A study of ‘you know’, ‘you see’ and ‘I mean’ in face-to-face conversation.Almqvist & Wiksell. Google Scholar
1992 Female and male usage of pragmatic expressions in same-sex and mixed-sex interaction. Language Variation and Change 4: 217–234. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Erman, B. & U.-B. Kotsinas
1993 The case of ba´ and you know . Studier i modern språkvetenskap 10: 76–93. Google Scholar
Fernandez, J.M.M.
1994 Les particules énonciatives dans la construction du discours. Presses Universitaires de France. Google Scholar
Fernández-Villanueva, M.
2007 Uses of also in semi-informal German. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 95–115. Google Scholar
Ferrara, K.
1997 Form and function of the discourse marker anyway: Implications for discourse analysis. Linguistics 35: 343–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, K. & B. Bell
1995 Sociolinguistic variation and discourse function of constructed dialogue introducers: the case of be+like . American Speech 70(3): 265–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferrer, H. & S. Pons Bordería
2001 La pragmática de los conectorer y las particulas modales. Universidad de Valencia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A.
2008 “And I think that is a very straight forward way of dealing with it.” The communicative function of cognitive verbs in political discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 27(4): 384–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009  Sort of and kind of in political discourse: hedge, head of NP or contextualization cue? In A. Jucker, M. Hundt & D. Schreier (eds.) Corpora: Pragmatics and Discourse. Papers from the 29th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora: 125–147. Rodopi. Google Scholar
Finell, A.
1989 ‘Well’ now and then. Journal of Pragmatics 13: 653–656. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K.
1998 Validating semantic analyses of discourse particles. Journal of Pragmatics 29: 111–127. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
2000 From cognitive semantics to lexical pragmatics: the functional polysemy of discourse particles. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2006 Approaches to discourse particles. Elsevier. Google Scholar
Fleischman, S. & M. Yaguello
2004 Discourse markers across languages? Evidence from English and French. In C.L. Moder & A. Aida Martinovic-Zic (eds.) Discourse across languages and cultures: 129–147. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foolen, A.
2006 Polysemy patterns in contrast. The case of Dutch toch and German doch . In K. Aijmer and A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds.): 59–72. Google Scholar
Fraser, B.
1990 An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 383–95. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1996 Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6(2): 167–190.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931–952. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
2006 Towards a theory of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (ed.): 189–204. Google Scholar
Fraser, B. & M. Malmaud-Makowski
1996 English and Spanish contrastive markers. Language Sciences 18: 863–881. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Fuller, J.M.
2003 Discourse marker use across speech contexts: a comparison of native and non-native speaker performance. Multilingua 22: 185–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Vizcaino, M.J. & M.A. Martinez-Cabeza
2005 The pragmatics of well and bueno in English and Spanish. Intercultural Pragmatics 2(1): 69–92. Google Scholar
Gilquin, G.
2008 Hesitation markers among EFL learners: Pragmatic deficiency or difference? In J. Romero-Trillo (ed.) Corpus and pragmatics. A mutualistic entente: 119–149. Mouton de Gruyter.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C.
1994 The meaning of lahı: understanding ‘emphasis’ in Malay (Bahasa Melayu). Oceanic Linguistics 33: 145–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González, M.
2004 Pragmatic markers in oral narrative: The case of English and Catalan. Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Greasley, P.
1994 An investigation into the use of the particle well: commentaries on a game of snooker. Journal of Pragmatics 22(5): 477–494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A.F.
2006 Epistemic modalities and the discourse particles of Singapore. In K. Fischer (ed.): 243–263. Google Scholar
Gülich, E.
1970 Makrosyntax der Gliederungssignale im gesprochenen Französisch. Walter Fink.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Gülich, E. & T. Kotschi
1983 Les marqueurs de la réformulation paraphrastique. Connecteurs pragmatiques et structure du discours. Actes du 2ème Colloque de Pragmatique de Genève. Cahiers de linguistique française 5: 305–351.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, A.
1998 The use of Finnish nyt as a discourse particle. In A. Jucker & Y. Ziv (eds.): 83–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, A. & E.-L. Seppänen
1992 Finnish kato: from verb to particle. Journal of Pragmatics 18: 527–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K.
2004 An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed., revised by C. M. M. Matthiessen). Arnold. Google Scholar
Hansen, M.-B.M.
1998 The function of discourse particles. A study with special reference to spoken standard French. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselgård, H.
2006 ‘Not now’-On non-correspondence between the cognate adverbs now and nå. In K. Aijmer & A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds.): 93–113. Google Scholar
Hasselgren, A.
2002 Learner corpora and language testing. Smallwords as markers of learner fluency. In S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (eds.) Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching: 143–173. Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J.
1984 A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.) Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis: 299–346. Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hölker, K.
1988 Zur Analyse von Markern, Korrektur-und Schlussmarker des Französichen. Steiner. Google Scholar
1991 Französisch: Partikelforschung. Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik 5(1): 77–88. Niemeyer. Google Scholar
Holmes, J.
1986 Functions of ‘you know’ in women's and men's speech. Language in Society 15: 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988a ‘Sort of’ in New Zealand women's and men's speech. Studia Linguistica 42(2): 85–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988b  Of course: A pragmatic particle in New Zealand women’s and men’s speech. Australian Journal of Linguistics 8(1): 49–74. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. & M. Stubbe
1995  You know, eh and other “exasperating expressions”: analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English. Language and Communication 15(1): 63–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horne, M., P. Hansson, G. Bruce, J. Frid & M. Filipsson
2001 Cue words and the topic structure of spoken discourse: The case of Swedish men ‘but’. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1061–1081. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Huspek, M.
1989 Linguistic variability and power: An analysis of you know/I think variation in working-class speech. Journal of Pragmatics 13: 661–683. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E.
2000 Procedural encoding of explicatures by the Modern Greek particle taha . In G. Andersen & T. Fretheim (eds.): 119–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johansson, S.
2006 How well can well be translated? On the English discourse particle well and its correspondences in English and German. In K. Aijmer & A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds.): 115–137. Google Scholar
Jucker, A.
1993 The discourse marker well. A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19(5): 435–53. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1997 The discourse marker well in the history of English. English Language and Linguistics 1(1): 91–110. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. & S.W. Smith
1998 And people just you know like ‘wow’: Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In A. Jucker & Y. Ziv (eds.): 171–201. Google Scholar
Jucker, A. & Y. Ziv
(eds.) 1998 Discourse markers. Description and theory. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knight, D. & S. Adolphs
2007 Multi-modal corpus pragmatics: the case of active listenership. In J. Romero-Trillo (ed.) Corpus and pragmatics. A mutualistic entente: 175–190. Mouton de Gruyter.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Kroon, C.
1995 Discourse particles in Latin: a study of nam, enim, autem, vero, and at. Gieben.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Kytö, M. & T. Walker
2006 Guide to a Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. (Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 130). Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Google Scholar
Lehti-Eklund, H.
2003 The grammaticalization of alltså and således: Two Swedish conjuncts revisited. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. Taylor (eds.) Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics: 123–162. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenk, U.
1998 Marking discourse coherence. Functions of discourse markers in spoken English. Gunter Narr Verlag. Google Scholar
Ler, S.L.V.
2006 A relevance-theoretic approach to discourse particles in Singapore English. In K. Fischer (ed.): 149–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D.
2006a Discourse markers in English: a discourse-pragmatic view. In K. Fischer (ed.): 43–59. Google Scholar
2006b Contrastive analysis of adversative relational markers, using comparable corpora. In K. Aijmer & A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds.): 139–153. Google Scholar
Lindström, J. & C. Wide
2005 Tracing the origin of a set of discourse particles: Swedish particles of the type you know . Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6(2): 211–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares-García, A. & J. Romero-Trillo
2006 Discourse markers in the EFL classoom. In M. Carretero, L. Hidalgo Downing, J. Lavid, E. Martínez-Caro, J. Neff, S. Pérez De Ayala & E. Sanchez-Pardo (eds.) A pleasure of life in words: A festschrift for Angela Downing. Madrid, Universidad Complutense. Google Scholar
2008 Discourse markers and the pragmatics of native and non-native teachers in a CLIL corpus. In J. Romero-Trillo (ed.) Corpus and pragmatics. A mutualistic entente: 191–204. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Macaulay, R.
2002 You know, it depends-Vous savez, cela dépend. Journal of Pragmatics 6: 746–767. Google Scholar
Martín Zorraquino, M.A. & J. Portolés
1999 Los marcadoeres del discurso. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds.) Gramática descriptiva de la lengua espanola, vol. III: 4051–4213. Espasa Calpe. Google Scholar
Maschler, Y.
1998  Rotsè lishmoa kéta? ‘Wanna hear something weird/funny?’ [lit. ‘a segment’]: Segmenting Israeli Hebrew talk-in-interaction. In A. Jucker & Y. Ziv (eds.): 13–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Metalanguage in interaction: Hebrew discourse markers. Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Matamala, A.
2007 The translation of oh in a corpus of dubbed sitcoms. Catalan Journal of Linguistics(6): 117–136. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, A.
1994 They're a little bit different…Observations on hedges in academic talk. In K. Aijmer & A.-B. Stenström (eds.) Discourse patterns in spoken and written corpora: 173–197. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. & R. Weinert
1995 The function of like in dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 23: 365–393. DOI logo  MetBibGoogle Scholar
Mittwoch, A.
1976 Grammar and illocutionary force. Lingua 40: 21–42. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Müller, S.
2004 ‘Well you know the type of person’: functions of ‘well’ in the speech of American and German students. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1157–1182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, S.
2000 Markers of general interpretive use in Amharic and Swahili. In G. Andersen & T. Fretheim (eds.): 173–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T.
1996 Pragmatic force modifiers: a study in interlanguage pragmatics. University of Jyväskylå.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Norrick, N.
2001 Discourse markers in oral narrative. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 849–878. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E.
1996 Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J.J. Gumperz & S.C. Levinson (eds.) Rethinking linguistic relativity: 407–437. Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Oh, S.-Y.
2000  Actually and in fact in American English: a data-based analysis. English Language and Linguistics 4(2): 243–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O.
1981 You know. A discourse-functional approach. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1982 The symbiotic relationship between pragmatic particles and impromptu speech. In N.E. Enkvist (ed.) Impromptu speech: A symposium: 147–177. Publications of the Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation. Åbo Akademi. Google Scholar
1995 Pragmatic particles twenty years after. In B. Wårvik, S.-K. Tanskanen & R. Hiltunen (eds.) Organization in discourse. Proceedings from the Turku Conference: 95–108. University of Turku. Google Scholar
2006 Constructions in cross-language research: Verbs as pragmatic particles in Solv. In K. Fischer (ed.): 237–257. Google Scholar
Ottesjö, C.
2005 Att fortsätta och att återgå. Institutionen för lingvistik, Göteborgs universitet. Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A.
1984 Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.) Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis: 57–101. Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Pons Bordería, S.
2006 A functional approach to the study of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (ed.): 77–99. Google Scholar
Pusch, C.D.
2000 The attitudinal meaning of preverbal markers in Gascon: Insights from the analysis of literary and spoken language data. In G. Andersen & T. Fretheim (eds.): 189–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Redeker, G.
1990 Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 367–381. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. & D. Lange
1991 The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech 66: 227–79. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J.
2002 The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 769–784. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
2007 Adaptive management in discourse: The case of involvement markers in English and Spanish conversations. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 81–94. Google Scholar
Rossari, C.
1994 Les opérations de reformulation. Peter Lang. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
2000 Connecteurs et relations de discours: des liens entre cognition et signification. Presses universitaires de Nancy.  BoPGoogle Scholar
2006 Formal properties of a subset of discourse markers: connectives. In K. Fischer (ed.): 299–314. Google Scholar
Roulet, E.
2006 The description of text relation markers in the Geneva modal of discourse organization. In K. Fischer (ed.): 115–131. Google Scholar
(ed.) 1983 Connecteurs pragmatiques et structure du discours. Actes du 2e Colloque de Pragmatique de Genève. Cahiers de linguistique française 5. Université de Genève. Google Scholar
Roulet, E., I. Filliettaz & A. Grobet
2001 Un modèle et un instrument d'analyse de l'organisation du discours. Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rühlemann, C.
2007 Conversation in context. A corpus-driven approach. Continuum. Google Scholar
Saari, M.
1984 Några pragmatiska partiklar i svenskt talspråk. In L. Huldén (ed.) Festskrift till Åke Granlund 28.4.1984: 213–221. Svenska litteratursällskapet i Finland. Google Scholar
Schegloff, E.A. & H. Sacks
1973 Opening up closings. Semiotica 8: 289–327. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D.
1987 Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schourup, L.C.
1985 Common discourse particles in English conversation. Garland. Google Scholar
2001 Rethinking well . Journal of Pragmatics 33(7): 1025–1060. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, S.
2001 Additive particles and the construction of context. In H. Ferrer & S. Pons Bordería (eds.): 245–262. Google Scholar
Schwenter, S. & E.C. Traugott
2000 Invoking scalarity: the development of in fact . Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(1): 7–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sebba, M. & S. Tate
1986  You know what I mean? Agreement marking in British black English. Journal of Pragmatics 10: 163–172. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Shloush, S.
1998 A unified account of Hebrew bekicur ‘in short’: Relevance theory and discourse structure considerations. In A. Jucker & Y. Ziv (eds.): 61–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M.
1998  I think and its Dutch equivalents in parliamentary debates. In S. Johansson & S. Oksefjell (eds.) Corpora and crosslinguistic research: theory, method and case studies: 297–317. Rodopi. Google Scholar
2000 The functions of I think in political discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10(1): 41–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 I thinkIn E. Kärkäinen, J. Haines, & T. Lauttamus (eds.) Studia Linguistica et Litteraria Septentrionalia. Studies presented to Heikki Nyyssönen: 93–106. Oulu University Pressulu University Press. Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. & K. Aijmer
2002/2003 The expectation marker of course . Languages in Contrast 41(1): 13–43. Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. & D. Willems
forthcoming. Cross-linguistic data as evidence for grammaticalization. In L. Degand and A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds.)  BoP
Smith, S.W. & A. Jucker
2000  Actually and other markers of an apparent discrepancy between propositional attitudes of conversational partners. In G. Andersen & T. Fretheim (eds.): 207–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L
1997 Recipient activities. Particles nii(n) and joo as responses in Finnish conversation. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California.
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson
[1986] (1995) Relevance. Communication and cognition. Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Stenström, A.-B.
1990a Pauses in monologue and dialogue. In J. Svartvik (ed.) The London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English. Description and research: 211–252. Lund University Pressund University Press. Google Scholar
1990b Lexical items peculiar to spoken language. In J. Svartvik (ed.) The London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English. Description and research: 137–175. Lund University Pressund University Press. Google Scholar
2006 The Spanish discourse markers o sea and pues and their English correspondences. In K. Aijmer & A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds.): 155–172. Google Scholar
Stenström, A.-B. & G. Andersen
1996 More trends in teenage talk: a corpus-based investigation of the discourse items cos and innit . In C.E. Percy, C.F. Meyer & I. Lancashire (eds.) Synchronic corpus linguistics: 177–190. Rodopi. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Svartvik, J.
1980 ‘Well’ in conversation. In S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, J. Svartvik & V. Adams (eds.) Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk: 167–177. Longman. Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. & R. Hudson
1999 Be like. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3(2): 147–172. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Takahara, P.O.
1998 Pragmatic functions of the English discourse marker anyway and its corresponding contrastive Japanese discourse markers. In A. Jucker and Y. Ziv (eds.): 327–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C.
1995 The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at ICHL XII, Manchester 1995.
Traugott, E.C. & R.B. Dasher
2002 Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Travis, C.E.
2006 The Natural Semantic Metalanguage approach to discourse markers. In K. Fischer (ed.): 219–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsui, A.
1994 English conversation. Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Van Bogaert, J.
2009 A reassessment of the syntactic classification of pragmatic expressions: The positions of you know and I think with special attention to you know as a marker of metalinguistic awareness. In A. Renouf & A. Kehoe (eds.) Corpus Linguistics: Refinements and Reassessments.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vaskó, I. & T. Fretheim
1997 Some central pragmatic functions of the Norwegian particles altså and nemelig . In Swan, T. & O. Jansen Westvik (eds.) Modality in Germanic lanaguages: Historical and comparative perspectives: 233–292. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
Vincent, D.
1993 Les ponctuants de la langue et autres mots du discours. Nuit blanche. Google Scholar
2005 The journey of non-standard discourse markers in Quebec French: Networks based on exemplification. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6(2): 188–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watts, R.
1988 A relevance-theoretic approach to commentary pragmatic markers: The case of actually, really and basically . Acta linguistica Hungarica 38(1/4): 235–60. Google Scholar
1989 Taking the pitcher to the well. Journal of Pragmatics 18(2): 203–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westheide, H.
1985 Eine kontrastive Analyse der Partikeln Dt. wohl und Nl. wel . Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 13: 186–202. Google Scholar
Weydt, H.
1969 Abtönunugspartikel. Die deutschen Modalwörter und ihre Französichen Entsprechungen. Gehlen. Google Scholar
White, P.
2003 Beyond modality and hedging: a dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text 23(2): 259–284.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, A., A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen & K. Aijmer
forthcoming. How prosody reflects semantic change: a synchronic case study of of course . In H. Cuyckens, K. Davidse & L. Vandelanotte (eds.) Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization Mouton de Gruyter
Wierzbicka, A.
1976 Particles and linguistic relativity. International Review of Slavic Linguistics 1(2/3): 327–367. Google Scholar
1994 ‘Cultural scripts’: A new approach to the study of cross-cultural communication. In M. Pütz (ed.) Language contact and language conflict: 69–87. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willems, D. & A. Demol
2006 Vraiment and really in contrast. When truth and reality meet. In K. Aijmer & A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds.): 215–235. Google Scholar
Ziv, Y.
1998 Hebrew kaze as discourse marker and lexical hedge: Conceptual and procedural properties. In A. Jucker & Y. Ziv (eds.): 203–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar