Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-fqc5m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-27T08:43:55.837Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2017

Laurel J. Brinton
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English
Pathways of Change
, pp. 300 - 324
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Primary Sources

Benson, Larry D. (ed.). 1987. The Riverside Chaucer, 3rd edn. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Greenlaw, Edwin et al. (eds.). 1932–49. The works of Edmund Spenser: A variorum edition. 10 vols. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Levenson, J. C. 1969. Introduction. Tales of Whilomville. By Crane, Stephen. Edited by Bowers, Fredson. Vol. 7. of The University of Virginia edition of the works of Stephen Crane. 10 vols. Charlotteville, VA: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
Macaulay, G. C. (ed.). 1900–01. The English works of John Gower. 2 vols. (Early English Text Society, Extra Series 81–82.) London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Thomas (ed.). 1890. The Old English version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical history of the English people. Part 1. (Early English Text Society 95/96.) London: N. Trübner.Google Scholar
Oizumi, Akio. 1991–92. A complete concordance to the works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Kunihiro Miki (programmer). 10 vols. (Alpha-Omega, Reihe C, Englische Autoren.) Hildesheim and New York: Olms-Weidmann.Google Scholar
Osgood, Charles Grosvenor. 1915. A concordance to the poems of Edmund Spenser. (The Carnegie Institution of Washington 189.) Philadelphia, PA: The Carnegie Institution of Washington.Google Scholar
Skeat, Walter W. (ed.). 1881, 1900. Aelfric’s Lives of saints, being a set of sermons on saints’ days formerly observed by the English Church. 2 vols. (Early English Text Society 76/82 and 94/114.) London: N. Trübner.Google Scholar
Spevack, Marvin. 1969. A complete and systematic concordance to the works of Shakespeare. 9 vols. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Wells, Stanley, Taylor, Gary, Jowett, John, and Montgomery, William (eds.). 1986. William Shakespeare: The complete works. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
ARCHER-3.2 = A representative corpus of historical English registers. Version 3.2. 1990–1993/2002/2007/2010/2013/2016. Originally compiled under the supervision of Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan at Northern Arizona University and University of Southern California; modified and expanded by subsequent members of a consortium of universities. Examples of usage taken from ARCHER were obtained under the terms of the ARCHER User Agreement. Available through CQPweb https://cqpweb.lancs.ac.uk.Google Scholar
BYU-EEBO = Davies, Mark. 2013. BYU-EEBO 400 million words, 1470s–1690s. (Based on Early English Books Online from Chadwyck-Healey.) Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/eebo/.Google Scholar
BYU-BNC = Davies, Mark. 2004–. BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press.) Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/.Google Scholar
Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury tales. Available online at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=cme;idno=CT.Google Scholar
Chaucer, Geoffrey. Troilus and Criseyde. Available online at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=cme;idno=Troilus.Google Scholar
CED = A corpus of English dialogues 1560–1760. Compiled under the supervision of Merja Kytö (Uppsala University) and Jonathan Culpeper (Lancaster University). See www.engelska.uu.se/forskning/engelska-spraket/elektroniska-resurser/a-corpus.Google Scholar
CEECS = Corpus of early English correspondence sampler (1418–1680). 1998. Compiled by Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala, Terttu Nevalainen, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin, and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. Available through ICAME and Oxford Text Archive. See www.helsinki.fi/varieng/domains/CEEC.html.Google Scholar
CEN = The corpus of English novels. Compiled by Hendrik De Smit. See https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0044428/cen.htm.Google Scholar
CLMET3.0 = The corpus of Late Modern English texts, version 3.0. Created by Hendrik De Smet, Hans-Jürgen Diller, and Jukka Tyrkkö. See https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0044428/clmet3_0.htm.Google Scholar
CMEP&V = Corpus of Middle English prose and verse. University of Michigan. Available online through the Middle English Compendium at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/.Google Scholar
COCA = Davies, Mark. 2008–. The corpus of contemporary American English: 520 million words, 1990–2015. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar
COHA = Davies, Mark. 2010–. The corpus of historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/.Google Scholar
A corpus of Irish English. Compiled by Raymond Hickey. https://www.uni-due.de/CP/CIE.htm.Google Scholar
A corpus of late Modern English prose. 1994. Complied by David Denison. http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/david.denison/LModE_Prose.html.Google Scholar
DOEC = Dictionary of Old English web corpus. 2011. Ed. by Antonette diPaolo Healey, John Price Wilkin, and Xin Xiang. Toronto: University of Toronto. See www.doe.utoronto.ca/pages/index.html.Google Scholar
ECF = Eighteenth-century fiction. 1996–2015. Ed. by Judith Hawley, Tom Keymer, and John Mullan. Chadwyck-Healey. ProQuest LLC. See http://collections.chadwyck.com/home/home_c18f.jsp.Google Scholar
ED = English drama. 1996–2015. Ed. by John Barnard et al. Chadwyck-Healey. ProQuest LLC. See http://collections.chadwyck.com/home/home_ed.jsp.Google Scholar
EEBO = Early English books online. 2003–2015. Chadwyck-Healey. ProQuest LLC. See http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home.Google Scholar
EEPF = Early English prose fiction. 1997–2015. Ed. by Holger Klein et al. Chadwyck-Healey. ProQuest LLC. See http://collections.chadwyck.com/home/home_eepf.jsp.Google Scholar
Google Books. Advanced Search. Available online at www.google.ca/advanced_book_search.Google Scholar
Google N-Gram Viewer. See Michel et al. 2011. Available online at https://books.google.com/ngrams.Google Scholar
Gower, John. Confessio amantis. Available online at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/confessio.Google Scholar
HC = Helsinki corpus of English texts. 1991. Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki. Compiled by Matti Rissanen (Project leader), Merja Kytö (Project secretary); Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, Matti Kilpiö (Old English); Saara Nevanlinna, Irma Taavitsainen (Middle English); Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (Early Modern English). See Kytö 1996. See www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/HelsinkiCorpus/.Google Scholar
King James Bible. Available online at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/.Google Scholar
Lampeter = The Lampeter corpus of Early Modern English tracts. 1998. Compiled by Josef Schmied, Claudia Claridge, and Rainer Siemund. See www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/LC/.Google Scholar
Malory, Thomas, Sir. Le morte dArthur. Available online at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/malorywks2.Google Scholar
OBPO = The Old Bailey proceedings online, 1674–1913. Ed. by Tim Hitchcock, Robert Shoemaker, Clive Emsley, Sharon Howard, and Jamie McLauglin et al. Version 7.0, 24 March 2012. Available online at www.oldbaileyonline.org.Google Scholar
Open Source Shakespeare. 2003–05. Bernini Communications LLC. Available online at www.opensourceshakespeare.org/concordance/wordformlist.php?Letter=W&pleasewait=1&msg=sr.Google Scholar
SOAP = Davies, Mark. 2012. Corpus of American soap operas, 100 million words, 2001–2012. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/soap/.Google Scholar
TIME = Davies, Mark. 2007–. TIME magazine corpus: 100 million words, 1920s–2000s. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/time/.Google Scholar
The Times digital archive (1785–2009). Gale Cengage Learning. See http://gale.cengage.co.uk/times.aspx/.Google Scholar
UofV = Modern English collection. University of Virginia Electronic Text Center. Previously available online at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/modeng/modeng0.browse.html (as of fall 2015, no longer available).Google Scholar
The American heritage dictionary of the English language. 2011. Joseph P. Pickett, Executive Editor. 5th edn. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
BTS = An Anglo-Saxon dictionary: Supplement. 1921. Ed. by T. Northcote Toller and Alistair Campbell. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
BT = An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. 1898. Ed. by Joseph Bosworth and T. Northcote Toller. Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.bosworthtoller.com/asearch.Google Scholar
Cambridge advanced learner’s dictionary. 2013. Ed. by Colin McIntosh. 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Norman, Douglas Gray, Patricia Ingham, and Anne Wallace-Hadrill. 1979. A Chaucer glossary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
English-idioms-and-expressions.com. www.english-idioms-and-expressions.com/idioms-in-english.html (accessed March 20, 2016).Google Scholar
Evans, Bergen and Evans, Cornelia. 1957. A dictionary of contemporary American usage. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Fowler, H. W. 1965. A dictionary of modern English usage, 2nd edn. revised by Sir Ernest Gowers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Garner, Bryan A. 2003. Modern American usage. 2nd edn. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Longman = Longman dictionary of contemporary usage. 1978. London: Longman.Google Scholar
MED = Middle English Dictionary. 1952–2001. Ed. by Hans Kurath et al. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Available online at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med/.Google Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary. 2000–. Ed. Michael Proffitt. 3rd edn. online. Oxford: Oxford University Press. See www.oed.com/.Google Scholar
Onions, C. T. 1986. A Shakespeare glossary. 3rd edn. Enlarged and revised by Robert D. Eagleson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, Pam. 2004. The Cambridge guide to English usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511487040.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Alexander. 1874–75. Shakespeare-lexicon. 2 vols. London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
Webster’s = Webster’s dictionary of English usage. 1989. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.Google Scholar
Wikipedia. Whatever (slang). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatever_(slang) (accessed June 20, 2016).Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

Benson, Larry D. (ed.). 1987. The Riverside Chaucer, 3rd edn. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Greenlaw, Edwin et al. (eds.). 1932–49. The works of Edmund Spenser: A variorum edition. 10 vols. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Levenson, J. C. 1969. Introduction. Tales of Whilomville. By Crane, Stephen. Edited by Bowers, Fredson. Vol. 7. of The University of Virginia edition of the works of Stephen Crane. 10 vols. Charlotteville, VA: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
Macaulay, G. C. (ed.). 1900–01. The English works of John Gower. 2 vols. (Early English Text Society, Extra Series 81–82.) London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Thomas (ed.). 1890. The Old English version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical history of the English people. Part 1. (Early English Text Society 95/96.) London: N. Trübner.Google Scholar
Oizumi, Akio. 1991–92. A complete concordance to the works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Kunihiro Miki (programmer). 10 vols. (Alpha-Omega, Reihe C, Englische Autoren.) Hildesheim and New York: Olms-Weidmann.Google Scholar
Osgood, Charles Grosvenor. 1915. A concordance to the poems of Edmund Spenser. (The Carnegie Institution of Washington 189.) Philadelphia, PA: The Carnegie Institution of Washington.Google Scholar
Skeat, Walter W. (ed.). 1881, 1900. Aelfric’s Lives of saints, being a set of sermons on saints’ days formerly observed by the English Church. 2 vols. (Early English Text Society 76/82 and 94/114.) London: N. Trübner.Google Scholar
Spevack, Marvin. 1969. A complete and systematic concordance to the works of Shakespeare. 9 vols. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Wells, Stanley, Taylor, Gary, Jowett, John, and Montgomery, William (eds.). 1986. William Shakespeare: The complete works. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
ARCHER-3.2 = A representative corpus of historical English registers. Version 3.2. 1990–1993/2002/2007/2010/2013/2016. Originally compiled under the supervision of Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan at Northern Arizona University and University of Southern California; modified and expanded by subsequent members of a consortium of universities. Examples of usage taken from ARCHER were obtained under the terms of the ARCHER User Agreement. Available through CQPweb https://cqpweb.lancs.ac.uk.Google Scholar
BYU-EEBO = Davies, Mark. 2013. BYU-EEBO 400 million words, 1470s–1690s. (Based on Early English Books Online from Chadwyck-Healey.) Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/eebo/.Google Scholar
BYU-BNC = Davies, Mark. 2004–. BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press.) Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/.Google Scholar
Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury tales. Available online at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=cme;idno=CT.Google Scholar
Chaucer, Geoffrey. Troilus and Criseyde. Available online at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=cme;idno=Troilus.Google Scholar
CED = A corpus of English dialogues 1560–1760. Compiled under the supervision of Merja Kytö (Uppsala University) and Jonathan Culpeper (Lancaster University). See www.engelska.uu.se/forskning/engelska-spraket/elektroniska-resurser/a-corpus.Google Scholar
CEECS = Corpus of early English correspondence sampler (1418–1680). 1998. Compiled by Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala, Terttu Nevalainen, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin, and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. Available through ICAME and Oxford Text Archive. See www.helsinki.fi/varieng/domains/CEEC.html.Google Scholar
CEN = The corpus of English novels. Compiled by Hendrik De Smit. See https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0044428/cen.htm.Google Scholar
CLMET3.0 = The corpus of Late Modern English texts, version 3.0. Created by Hendrik De Smet, Hans-Jürgen Diller, and Jukka Tyrkkö. See https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0044428/clmet3_0.htm.Google Scholar
CMEP&V = Corpus of Middle English prose and verse. University of Michigan. Available online through the Middle English Compendium at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/.Google Scholar
COCA = Davies, Mark. 2008–. The corpus of contemporary American English: 520 million words, 1990–2015. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar
COHA = Davies, Mark. 2010–. The corpus of historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/.Google Scholar
A corpus of Irish English. Compiled by Raymond Hickey. https://www.uni-due.de/CP/CIE.htm.Google Scholar
A corpus of late Modern English prose. 1994. Complied by David Denison. http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/david.denison/LModE_Prose.html.Google Scholar
DOEC = Dictionary of Old English web corpus. 2011. Ed. by Antonette diPaolo Healey, John Price Wilkin, and Xin Xiang. Toronto: University of Toronto. See www.doe.utoronto.ca/pages/index.html.Google Scholar
ECF = Eighteenth-century fiction. 1996–2015. Ed. by Judith Hawley, Tom Keymer, and John Mullan. Chadwyck-Healey. ProQuest LLC. See http://collections.chadwyck.com/home/home_c18f.jsp.Google Scholar
ED = English drama. 1996–2015. Ed. by John Barnard et al. Chadwyck-Healey. ProQuest LLC. See http://collections.chadwyck.com/home/home_ed.jsp.Google Scholar
EEBO = Early English books online. 2003–2015. Chadwyck-Healey. ProQuest LLC. See http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home.Google Scholar
EEPF = Early English prose fiction. 1997–2015. Ed. by Holger Klein et al. Chadwyck-Healey. ProQuest LLC. See http://collections.chadwyck.com/home/home_eepf.jsp.Google Scholar
Google Books. Advanced Search. Available online at www.google.ca/advanced_book_search.Google Scholar
Google N-Gram Viewer. See Michel et al. 2011. Available online at https://books.google.com/ngrams.Google Scholar
Gower, John. Confessio amantis. Available online at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/confessio.Google Scholar
HC = Helsinki corpus of English texts. 1991. Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki. Compiled by Matti Rissanen (Project leader), Merja Kytö (Project secretary); Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, Matti Kilpiö (Old English); Saara Nevanlinna, Irma Taavitsainen (Middle English); Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (Early Modern English). See Kytö 1996. See www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/HelsinkiCorpus/.Google Scholar
King James Bible. Available online at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/.Google Scholar
Lampeter = The Lampeter corpus of Early Modern English tracts. 1998. Compiled by Josef Schmied, Claudia Claridge, and Rainer Siemund. See www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/LC/.Google Scholar
Malory, Thomas, Sir. Le morte dArthur. Available online at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/malorywks2.Google Scholar
OBPO = The Old Bailey proceedings online, 1674–1913. Ed. by Tim Hitchcock, Robert Shoemaker, Clive Emsley, Sharon Howard, and Jamie McLauglin et al. Version 7.0, 24 March 2012. Available online at www.oldbaileyonline.org.Google Scholar
Open Source Shakespeare. 2003–05. Bernini Communications LLC. Available online at www.opensourceshakespeare.org/concordance/wordformlist.php?Letter=W&pleasewait=1&msg=sr.Google Scholar
SOAP = Davies, Mark. 2012. Corpus of American soap operas, 100 million words, 2001–2012. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/soap/.Google Scholar
TIME = Davies, Mark. 2007–. TIME magazine corpus: 100 million words, 1920s–2000s. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/time/.Google Scholar
The Times digital archive (1785–2009). Gale Cengage Learning. See http://gale.cengage.co.uk/times.aspx/.Google Scholar
UofV = Modern English collection. University of Virginia Electronic Text Center. Previously available online at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/modeng/modeng0.browse.html (as of fall 2015, no longer available).Google Scholar
The American heritage dictionary of the English language. 2011. Joseph P. Pickett, Executive Editor. 5th edn. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
BTS = An Anglo-Saxon dictionary: Supplement. 1921. Ed. by T. Northcote Toller and Alistair Campbell. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
BT = An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. 1898. Ed. by Joseph Bosworth and T. Northcote Toller. Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.bosworthtoller.com/asearch.Google Scholar
Cambridge advanced learner’s dictionary. 2013. Ed. by Colin McIntosh. 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Norman, Douglas Gray, Patricia Ingham, and Anne Wallace-Hadrill. 1979. A Chaucer glossary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
English-idioms-and-expressions.com. www.english-idioms-and-expressions.com/idioms-in-english.html (accessed March 20, 2016).Google Scholar
Evans, Bergen and Evans, Cornelia. 1957. A dictionary of contemporary American usage. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Fowler, H. W. 1965. A dictionary of modern English usage, 2nd edn. revised by Sir Ernest Gowers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Garner, Bryan A. 2003. Modern American usage. 2nd edn. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Longman = Longman dictionary of contemporary usage. 1978. London: Longman.Google Scholar
MED = Middle English Dictionary. 1952–2001. Ed. by Hans Kurath et al. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Available online at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med/.Google Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary. 2000–. Ed. Michael Proffitt. 3rd edn. online. Oxford: Oxford University Press. See www.oed.com/.Google Scholar
Onions, C. T. 1986. A Shakespeare glossary. 3rd edn. Enlarged and revised by Robert D. Eagleson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, Pam. 2004. The Cambridge guide to English usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511487040.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Alexander. 1874–75. Shakespeare-lexicon. 2 vols. London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
Webster’s = Webster’s dictionary of English usage. 1989. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.Google Scholar
Wikipedia. Whatever (slang). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatever_(slang) (accessed June 20, 2016).Google Scholar
Aarts, Bas. 2004. Modeling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language 28(1), 149. DOI: 10.1075/sl.28.1.02aar.Google Scholar
Aarts, Bas and Meyer, Charles F. (eds.). 1995. The verb in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think – an English modal particle. In Swan and Westvik (eds.), 1–47. DOI: 10.1515/9783110889932.1.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin and Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie (eds.). 2006. Pragmatic markers in contrast. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin and Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2011. Pragmatic markers. In Zienkowski, Jan, Östman, Jan-Ola, and Verschueren, Jef (eds.), Discursive pragmatics, 223247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/hoph.8.13aij.Google Scholar
Akimoto, Minoji. 2000. The grammaticalization of the verb pray. In Fischer, Rosenbach, and Stein (eds.), 67–84. DOI: 10.1075/slcs.53.05aki.Google Scholar
Akimoto, Minoji. 2002. On the grammaticalization of the parenthetical “I’m afraid.” In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Studies in English historical linguistics and philology: A Festschrift for Akio Oizumi, 19. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. On doing as you please. In Jucker (ed.), 275–309. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.35.17all.Google Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt. 1986. Contrastive linking in spoken and written English. In Tottie and Bäcklund (eds.), 1340.Google Scholar
Ameka, Felix. 1992. Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 18, 101118. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(92)90048-G.Google Scholar
American Dialect Society. Email Listserv. www.americandialect.org Posts 002300, 002309, 002313, 002318, 002325, 021620, and 063798 (accessed August 9, 2015).Google Scholar
Andersen, Gisle. 2001. Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation: A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.84.Google Scholar
Anderson, Lloyd B. 1986. Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries. In Chafe and Nichols (eds.), 273–312.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1979 [1956]. Ifs and cans. In Urmson, J. O. and Warnock, G. J. (eds.), Philosophical papers, 3rd edn., 205232. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bammesberger, Alfred. 2006. The syntactic analysis of the opening verses in Beowulf. ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes and Reviews. 19(4), 37. DOI: 10.3200/ANQQ.19.4.3-7.Google Scholar
Baron, Naomi. 2008. Always on: Language in an online and mobile world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195313055.001.0001.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2002. On the development of final though: A case of grammaticalization? In Wischer and Diewald (eds.), 345–361. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.49.22bar.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smirnova, Elena, Sommerer, Lotte, and Gildea, Spike (eds.). 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cal.18.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla. 2006. Discourse markers in Italian: Towards a “compositional” meaning. In Fischer (ed.), 449–464.Google Scholar
Bech, Kristin. 2012. Word order, information structure, and discourse relations: A study of Old and Middle English verb-final clauses. In Meurman-Solin, Anneli, López-Couso, María José, and Los, Bettelou (eds.), Information structure and syntactic change in the history of English, 6686. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate. 2009. Procatalepsis and the etymology of hedging and boosting particles. In Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard and Visconti, Jacqueline (eds.), Current trends in diachronic semantics and pragmatics, 81105. Bingley, UK: Emerald. DOI: 10.1163/9789004253216_002.Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate. 2016. Pragmatic markers in British English: Meaning in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139507110.Google Scholar
Benus, Stefan, Gravano, Agustin, and Hirschberg, Julia. 2007. Prosody, emotions, and … whatever. Interspeech 2007. www1.cs.columbia.edu/nlp/papers/2007/benus_al_07a.pdf.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1971. Subjectivity in language. In Problems in general linguistics, 223230. Trans. Mary Elizabeth Meek. Coral Gable, FL: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2012. New perspectives: Construction Grammar. In Bergs and Brinton (eds.), Vol. 2, 16311646.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.). 2012. English historical linguistics: An international handbook. 2 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.). 2008. Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9(1), 93124. DOI: 10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, and Finegan, Edward (eds.). 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Educational.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., and Wiemer, Björn (eds.). 2004. What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Blake, Norman F. 1992. Why and what in Shakespeare. In Takamiya, Toshiyuki and Beadle, Richard (eds.), Chaucer to Shakespeare: Essays in honour of Shinsuke Ando, 179193. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1988a. The organization of discourse. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey. Vol. IV: Language: The socio-cultural context, 229250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1988b. So as a constraint on relevance. In Kempson, Ruth M. (ed.), Mental representations: The interface between language and reality, 183195. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boggel, Sandra. 2009. Metadiscourse in Middle English and Early Modern English religious texts: A corpus-based study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina B. 2009. Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker “so” in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 974998. DOI:10.1016/j. pragma.2008.10.00.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1976–77. Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 1, 114.Google Scholar
Bonelli, Elena Tognini. 1992. “All I’m saying is …”: The correlation of form and function in pseudo-cleft sentences. Literary and Linguistic Computing 7(1), 3042. DOI:10.1093/llc/7.1.30.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti and Vincent, Nigel. 2011. Grammaticalization and directionality. In Narrog and Heine (eds.), 163176.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper and Harder, Peter. 2007. Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language 31(3), 569606. DOI: 10.1075/sl.31.3.03boy.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper and Harder, Peter. 2009. Evidentiality: Linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language 16(1), 943. DOI: 10.1075/fol.16.1.03boy.Google Scholar
Breivik, Leiv Egil and Swan, Toril. 1994. Initial adverbials and word order in English with special reference to the Early Modern period. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 1143. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110907582.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2002. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization reconsidered: On the late use of temporal adverbs. In Fanego, Teresa, López-Couso, María José, and Pérez-Guerra, Javier (eds.), English historical syntax and morphology, 6797. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.223.07bri.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2006. Pathways in the development of pragmatic markers in English. In van Kemenade, Ans and Los, Bettelou (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 307334. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9780470757048.ch13.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511551789.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2010. Discourse markers. In Jucker and Taavitsainen (eds.), 285–314.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2012. “The ghosts of old morphology”: Lexicalization or (de)grammaticalization. In Davidse et al. (eds.), 135166. DOI: 10.1075/slcs.130.06bri.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2014a. The extremes of insubordination: Exclamatory as if!. Journal of English Linguistics 42(2), 93113. DOI: 10.1177/0075424214521425.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2014b. If you choose/like/prefer/want/wish: The origin of metalinguistic and politeness functions. In Hundt (ed.), 270–290.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2015. Historical discourse analysis. In Tannen, Deborah, Hamilton, Heidi E., and Schiffrin, Deborah (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, 2nd edn., 222243. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. forthcoming. That’s luck, if you ask me: The rise of an intersubjective comment clause.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511615962.Google Scholar
Bromhead, Helen. 2009. The reign of truth and faith: Epistemic expressions in 16th and 17th century English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bronson, Bertrand H. 1940. Chaucer’s art in relation to his audience. In Five studies in literature, 153. (University of California Publications in English 8.) Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen. 1987 [1978]. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrows, J. A. 2008. Medieval writers and their work: Middle English literature 1100–1500, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Busse, Ulrich. 2002. Linguistic variation in the Shakespeare corpus: Morpho-syntactic variability of second-person pronouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.106.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere, and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, Ruth. 2007. Lists in letters: NP-lists and general extenders in Early English correspondence. In Moskowich-Spiegel, Isabel and Crespo-García, Begoña (eds.), Bells chiming from the past: Cultural and linguistic studies on early English, 3754. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Carroll, Ruth. 2008. Historical English phraseology and the extender tag. Journal of the Spanish Society for Medieval English Language and Literature (SELIM) 15(1), 738.Google Scholar
Cassidy, Frederic G. 1996. The Anglo-Saxon interjection. In Pollner, Clausdirk, Rohlfing, Helmut, and Hausmann, Frank-Rutger (eds.), Bright is the ring of words: Festschrift für Horst Weinstock zum 65. Geburtstag, 4548. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Chafe and Nichols (eds.), 261272.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace and Nichols, Johanna (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chen, Guohua. 1998. The degrammaticalization of addressee-satisfaction conditionals in Early Modern English. In Fisiak, Jacek and Krygier, Marcin (eds.), Advances in English historical linguistics, 2332. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra and Timberlake, Alan. 1985. Tense, aspect, and mood. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 202258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cichosz, Anna. forthcoming. The constituent order of hwæt-clauses in Old English prose. Journal of Germanic Linguistics.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2013. The evolution of three pragmatic markers: As it were, so to speak/say and if you like. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 14(2), 161184. DOI: 10.1075/jhp.14.2.01cla.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia and Arnovick, Leslie. 2010. Pragmaticalisation and discursisation. In Jucker and Taavitsainen (eds.), 165–192.Google Scholar
Clemoes, Peter. 1985. Language in context: Her in the 890 Anglo-Saxon chronicle. Leeds Studies in English 16(n.s.). 2736.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1987. Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of the Philological Society, 110131. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.). 1975. Syntax and semantics. Vol. 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert. 2009. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language 16(1), 4462. DOI: 10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor.Google Scholar
Corum, Claudia. 1975. A pragmatic analysis of parenthetic adjuncts. In Grossman, Robin E., San, L. James, and Vance, Timothy J. (eds.), Papers from the eleventh regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 133141. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1995. On the foregrounded progressive in American conversational narrative: A new development? In Riehle, Wolfgang (ed.), Anglistentag 1994 Graz: Proceedings, 229245. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Crystal, David and Davey, Derek. 1975. Advanced conversational English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan and Kytö, Merja. 2000. Data in historical pragmatics: Spoken interaction (re)cast as writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(2), 175199. DOI: 10.1075/jhp.1.2.03cul.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan and Kytö, Merja. 2010. Early Modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curme, George O. 1931. A grammar of the English language. Vol. II: Syntax. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath. [Reprint Essex, CT: Verbatim, 1977.]Google Scholar
Curme, George O. 1935. A grammar of the English language. Vol. I: Parts of speech. Boston: D.C. Heath. [Reprint Essex, CT: Verbatim, 1977.]Google Scholar
Curzan, Anne. 2012. Revisiting the reduplicative copula with corpus-based evidence. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 211221. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0020.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. 1998. Conditionals and prediction: Time, knowledge and causation in conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. 2009. Review of English: Meaning and culture. By Anna Wierzbicka. Journal of English Linguistics 37(4), 380384. DOI: 10.1177/0075424209332966.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara and Sweetser, Eve. 2005. Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin, Breban, Tine, Brems, Lieselotte, and Mortelmans, Tanja (eds.). 2012. Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/slcs.130.Google Scholar
Davies, H. W. 1869. An English grammar for the use of junior classes. Toronto: Adam Miller.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat and Reed, Susan. 2001. Conditionals: A comprehensive empirical analysis. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth and Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline. 2015. Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16(1), 5985. DOI: 10.1075/jhp.12.1.03deg.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth and Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2011. Introduction: Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of discourse markers. Linguistics 49(2), 287294. DOI: 10.1515/LING.2011.008.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole. 2007. The relation between syntactic and prosodic parenthesis. In Dehé and Kavalova (eds.), 261–284. DOI: 10.1075/la.106.15deh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole. 2010. Sentence-initial I think (that) and I believe (that). Studies in Language 34(1), 3674. DOI: 10.1075/sl.34.1.02deh.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole and Kavalova, Yorkanka. 2006. The syntax, pragmatics, and prosody of parenthetical what. English Language and Linguistics 10(2), 289320. DOI: 10.1017/S1360674306001936.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole and Kavalova, Yordanka. 2007. Parentheticals: An introduction. In Dehé and Kavalova (eds.), 1–22. DOI: 10.1075/la.106.03deh.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole and Kavalova, Yordanka (eds.). 2007. Parentheticals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/la.106.Google Scholar
Denis, Derek. 2015. The development of pragmatic markers in Canadian English. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto dissertation. http://web.uvic.ca/~ddenis/Site/Denis_thesis_final.pdf.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1990. Auxiliary + impersonal in Old English. Folia Linguistica Historica IX, 139166.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 2001. Gradience and linguistic change. In Brinton, Laurel J. (ed.), Historical linguistics 1999: Selected papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 9–13 August 1999, 119144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.215.10den.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 2010. Category change in English with or without structural change. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, 105128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.90.07den.Google Scholar
Dér, Csilla Ilona. 2010. On the status of discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57(1), 338. DOI: 10.1556/ALing.57.2010.1.1.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2006. Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Fischer (ed.), 403–425.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2010. On some problem areas in grammaticalization studies. In Stathi, Katrina, Gehweiler, Elke, and König, Ekkehard (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, 1750. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/slcs.119.04die.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2011. Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In Narrog and Heine (eds.), 450–461.Google Scholar
Donaldson, E. Talbot. 1981. Adventures with the adversative conjunction in the general prologue to the Canterbury Tales; or what’s before the but? In Benskin, Michael and Samuels, M. L. (eds.), So meny people, longages and tongues: Philological essays in Scots and mediaeval English presented to Angus McIntosh, 355366. Edinburgh: Middle English Dialect Project.Google Scholar
Eaton, Roger, Fischer, Olga, Koopman, Willem, and van der Leek, Frederike (eds.). 1985. Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.41.Google Scholar
Edmondson, Willis. 1981. Spoken discourse: A model for analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Enkvist, Nils Erik. 1986. More about the textual functions of the Old English adverbial þa. In Kastovsky, Dieter and Szwedek, Aleksander (eds.), Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries: In honour of Jacek Fisiak on the occasion of his fiftieth birthday. Vol. 1, 301309. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Erman, Britt. 1986. Some pragmatic expressions in English conversation. In Tottie and Bäcklund (eds.), 131–147.Google Scholar
Erman, Britt. 1987. Pragmatic expressions in English: A study of “you know,” “you see” and “I mean” in face-to-face conversation. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Erman, Britt. 2001. Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 13371359. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00066-7.Google Scholar
Erman, Britt and Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt. 1993. Pragmaticalization: the case of ba’ and you know. Studies i modern språkvetenskap, 7693. (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Stockholm Studies in Modern Philology, New Series 10.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. Teresa. 1991. The representation of disjunct constituents. Language 67, 726762. DOI: 10.2307/415075.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Nicolaeva, Irina (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 366431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas and Wilkins, David. 2000. In the mind’s ear: Semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76 (3), 546592. DOI: 10.2307/417135.Google Scholar
Finegan, Edward and Biber, Douglas. 1995. That and zero complementisers in Late Modern English: Exploring ARCHER from 1650–1990. In Aarts and Meyer (eds.), 241–257.Google Scholar
Finell, Ann. 1989. Well now and then. Journal of Pragmatics 13, 653656.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 2000. Whatever. In Jackson, Brendan and Matthews, Tanya (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory, SALT X, 2739. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin (ed.). 2006. Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2007a. The development of English parentheticals: A case of grammaticalization? In Smit, Ute et al. (eds.), Tracing English through time: Explorations in language variation. A Festschrift for Herbert Schendl on the occasion of his 65th birthday, 103118. Vienna: Braumüller.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2007b. Morphosyntactic change: Formal and functional perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Anette, and Stein, Dieter (eds.). 2000. Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/slcs.53.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2004. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the historical construction of interlocutor stance: From stance markers to discourse markers. Discourse Studies 6(4), 427448. DOI: 10.1177/1461445604046585.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, Jean E. 2015. Discourse marking in writing. Discourse Studies 17(1), 6482. DOI: 10.1177/1461445614557785.Google Scholar
Frank-Job, Barbara. 2006. A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In Fischer (ed.), 359–374.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1975. Hedged performatives. In Cole and Morgan (eds.), 187210.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1988. Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38, 1933.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14(3), 383395. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6(2), 167190. DOI: 10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31, 931952. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2009. An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics 1, 293320. DOI: 10.1163/187730909X12538045489818.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2009. Construction Grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames 1(2), 262291. DOI: 10.1075/cf.1.2.04fri.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam and Östman, Jan-Ola. 2005. Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 17521778. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013.Google Scholar
Garley, Matt, Slade, Benjamin, and Terkourafi, Marina. 2010. A text in speech’s clothing: Discovering specific functions of formulaic expression in Beowulf and blogs. In Wood, David (ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication, 213233. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Gehweiler, Elke. 2008. From proper name to primary interjection: The case of gee! Journal of Historical Pragmatics 9, 7193. DOI: 10.1075/jhp.9.1.05geh.Google Scholar
Gehweiler, Elke. 2010. Interjections. In Jucker and Taavitsainen (eds.), 315349.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1982. Evidentiality and epistemic space. Functions in Language 6, 2349. DOI: 10.1075/sl.6.1.03giv.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Julia Anna. 1980. Discourse particles: An analysis of the role of y’know, I mean, well, and actually in conversations. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation.Google Scholar
González-Álvarez, María Dolores. 1996. Epistemic disjuncts in Early Modern English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 1/2, 219256.Google Scholar
Goossens, Louis. 1982. On the development of the modals and of the epistemic function in English. In Ahlqvist, Anders (ed.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 7484. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.21.12goo.Google Scholar
Gorrell, J. Hendren. 1895. Indirect discourse in Anglo-Saxon. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 10, 342485.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1969. Studies in English adverbial usage. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Grimm, Jacob. 1898 [1837]. Deutsche Grammatik. Vierter Theil. Neuer vermehrter Abdruck besorgt durch Gustav Roethe und Edward Schroeder. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsman.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne and Mutz, Katrin. 2004. Grammaticalization vs. pragmaticalization? The development of pragmatic markers in German and Italian. In Bisang, Himmelmann, and Wiemer (eds.), 77–107. DOI: 10.1515/9783110197440.Google Scholar
Haas, Florian. 2007. The development of English each other: Grammaticalization, lexicalization, or both? English Language and Linguistics 11(1), 3150. DOI: 10.1017/S1360674306002103.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1970. Language structure and language function. In Lyons, John (ed.), New horizons in linguistics, 140165. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1979. Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structures and their determination by different semantic functions. In Allerton, D. J., Carney, Edward, and Holdcroft, David (eds.), Function and context in linguistic analysis: A Festschrift for William Haas, 5779. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hancil, Sylvia, Haselow, Alexander, and Post, Margje (eds.). 2015. Final particles. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 1998. The function of discourse particles: A study with special reference to spoken Standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.53.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2005. From prepositional phrase to hesitation marker: The semantic and pragmatic evolution of French enfin. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6(1), 3768. DOI: 10.1075/jhp.6.1.03mos.Google Scholar
Hanson, Kristin 1987. On subjectivity and the history of epistemic expressions in English. In Need, Barbara, Schiller, Eric, and Bosch, Anna (eds.), Papers from the twenty-third regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 133147. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2013. Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica 47(2), 375424. DOI: 10.1515/flin.2013.015.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2003a. Grammaticalization. In Joseph and Janda (eds.), 575601.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2003b. On degrammaticalization. In Blake, Barry J. and Burridge, Kate (eds.), Historical linguistics 2001: Selected papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Melbourne, 13–17 August 2001, 163179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.237.12hei.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2012. Between sentence grammar and discourse grammar: On insubordination. Unpublished MS.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2013. On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51(6), 12051247. DOI: 10.1515/ling-2013-0048.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike, and Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hiltunen, Risto. 2006. “Eala, geferan and gode wryhtan”: On interjections in Old English. In Walmsley, John (ed.), Inside Old English: Essays in honour of Bruce Mitchell, 91116. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Himmelmann, and Wiemer (eds.), 21–42.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1984. Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics 8, 345365. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1986. Functions of you know in women’s and men’s speech. Language in Society 15, 122. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404500011623.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1988. Sort of in New Zealand women’s and men’s speech. Studia Linguistica 42(2), 85121. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467–9582.1988.tb00788.x.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. 1975. On assertive predicates. In Kimball, John B (ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. IV, 91124. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1977. Hildebrandslied 35b: Dat ih dir it nu bi huldi gibu. In Hopper, Paul J. (ed.), Studies in descriptive and historical linguistics: Festschrift for Winfred P. Lehmann, 481485. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.4.32hop.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott and Heine (eds.), Vol. I, 17–35. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 2001. Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: Prototype or family resemblance. In Pütz, Martin, Miemeier, Susanne, and Dirven, René (eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition, 109129. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra A. 2008. Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Laury, Ritva (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions, 99123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.80.06hop.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Lawrence R. 2000. From if to iff: Conditional perfection as pragmatic strengthening. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 289326. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00053-3.Google Scholar
Hoye, Leo. 1997. Adverbs and modality in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne (ed.). 2014. Late Modern English syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, Elly. 2001. Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.86.Google Scholar
I’m just sayin’: There are anachronisms in ‘Downton.’ www.npr.org/2012/02/13/146652747/im-just-sayin-there-are-anachronisms-in-downton (accessed August 18, 2015).Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
James, Deborah. 1972. Some aspects of the syntax and semantics of interjections. In Peranteau, Paul, Levi, Judith N., and Pares, Gloria C. (eds.), Papers from the eighth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 162172. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
James, Deborah. 1973. Another look at, say, some grammatical constraints, on, oh, interjections and hesitations. In Corum, Claudia, Smith-Stark, T. Cedric, and Weiser, Ann (eds.), Papers from the ninth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 242251. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
James, Deborah. 1978. The use of oh, ah, say, and well in relation to a number of grammatical phenomena. Papers in Linguistics 11, 517535. DOI:10.1080/08351817809389186.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1927 [1961]. A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part III: Syntax, second volume. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1946. A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part V: Syntax, fourth volume. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1949. A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part VII: Syntax, completed by Niels Haislund. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D (eds.). 2003. The handbook of historical linguistics. Malden, MA and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1993. The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19(5), 435452. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004–9.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.). 1995. Historical pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1997. The discourse marker well in the history of English. English Language and Linguistics 1(1), 91110. DOI: 10.1017/S136067430000037X.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Smith, Sara W.. 1998. And people just you like “wow”: Discourse markers and negotiating strategies. In Jucker and Ziv (eds.), 171201. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.57.10juc.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.). 2010. Historical pragmatics. (Handbooks of Pragmatics 8.) Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma. 2013. English historical pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Ziv, Yael (eds.). 1998. Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.57.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2007. Spoken parenthetical clauses in English. In Dehé and Kavalova (eds.), 25–52. DOI: 10.1075/la.106.05kal.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2010. Pragmatic functions of I think. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Mihatsch, Wiltrud, and Schneider, Stefan (eds.), New approaches to hedging, 243272. London: Emerald.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2011. Explaining divergence: The case of clause-initial I think. In Schönefeld, Doris (ed.), Converging evidence: Methodological and theoretical issues for linguistic research, 81112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/hcp.33.07kal.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2013. The development of comment clauses. In Aarts, Bas, Close, Joanne, Leech, Geoffrey, and Wallis, Sean (eds.), The English verb phrase: Investigating recent change with corpora, 286317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139060998.013.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther and Heine, Bernd. 2014. Sentence grammar vs. thetical grammar: Two competing domains? In MacWhinney, Brian, Malchukov, Andrej, and Moravcsik, Edith (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage, 348363. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4), 848893. DOI: 10.1075/sl.35.4.03kal.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003. Epistemic stance in English conversation. A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.115.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2007. The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In Englebretson, Robert (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 183219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.164.08kar.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 2013. The limits of (construction) grammar. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 3248. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kearns, Kate. 2007. Epistemic verbs and zero complementizer. English Language and Linguistics 11(3), 475505. DOI: 10.1017/S1360674307002353.Google Scholar
Keller, Eric. 1979. Gambits: Conversational strategy signals. Journal of Pragmatics 3. 219238. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(79)90032–8.Google Scholar
Kiesling, Scott F. 2011 Stance in context: Affect, alignment and investment in the analysis of stancetaking. Presented at the iMean Conference. The University of West England, Bristol, UK. April 15, 2011.Google Scholar
Kivimaa, Kirsti. 1968. Clauses in Chaucer introduced by conjunctions with appended “that.” (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 43.1.) Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.Google Scholar
Kleiner, Brian. 1998. Whatever – its use in “pseudo-argument.” Journal of Pragmatics 30, 589613. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00030-7.Google Scholar
Koivisto-Alanko, Päivi and Rissanen, Matti. 2002. We give you to wit: Semantics and grammaticalisation of the verb wit in the history of English. In Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, Nevala, Minna, Nurmi, Arja, and Rissanen, Matti (eds.), Variation past and present: VARIENG studies on English for Terttu Nevalainen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Koktová, Eva. 1986. Remarks on the semantics of sentence adverbials. Journal of Pragmatics 10, 2740. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(86)90098-6.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koops, Christian and Hilpert, Martin. 2009. The co-evolution of syntactic and pragmatic complexity: Diachronic and cross-linguistic aspects of pseudoclefts. In Givón, T. and Shibatani, Masayoshi (eds.), Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution, 215238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.85.09the.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 1991. Free adjuncts and absolutes in English: Problems of control and interpretation. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2010. The progressive in Modern English: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization and related changes. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 1998. British English is developing a new discourse marker, innit? A study in lexicalisation based on social, regional and stylistic variation. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 23, 145197.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 1996. Manual to the diachronic part of the Helsinki corpus of English texts: Coding conventions and lists of source texts, 3rd edn. Department of English, University of Helsinki. See http://clu.uni.no/icame/manuals/HC/INDEX.HTM.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1990. How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 26, 79102. DOI: 10.5774/17-0-92.Google Scholar
Lee-Goldman, Russell Rafael. 2011. Context in constructions. Berkeley, CA: University of California dissertation. www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~rleegold/ling/leegoldman-diss.pdf (accessed August 9, 2015).Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian, and Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2002a. New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Wischer and Diewald (eds.), 1–18. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.49.03leh.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2002b. Thoughts on grammaticalization, 2nd revised edn. ASSidUE: Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt, 9. www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/ASSidUE09.pdf.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2000. Soþlice and witodlice: Discourse markers in Old English. In Fischer, Rosenbach, and Stein (eds.), 229–249. DOI: 10.1075/slcs.53.12len.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2012. Old English: Pragmatics and discourse. In Bergs and Brinton (eds.), Vol. 1, 325340.Google Scholar
Leo, Alex. 2009. Jon Stewart mocks CNN for new segments “Just Sayin,” “Are You Kidding Me,” and “What The.” The Huffington Post www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/19/jon-stewart-mocks-cnn-for_n_262807.html (accessed August 9, 2015).Google Scholar
Lessau, Donald A. 1994. A dictionary of grammaticalization. 3 vols. (Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 21.) Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, Diane. 2006. Discourse markers in English: A discourse-pragmatic view. In Fischer (ed.), 61–76.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark. 2007. WEV. Language Log. August 3, 2007. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004781.html (accessed October 15, 2015).Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark. 2012. Just sayin’. Language Log. January 11, 2012. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3692 (accessed March 23, 2017).Google Scholar
Lightfoot, Douglas J. 2005. Can the lexicalization/grammaticalization distinction be reconciled? Studies in Language 29(3), 583615. DOI: 10.1075/sl.29.3.03lig.Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo. 2004. Grammaticalization of syntactic incompleteness: Free conditionals in Italian and other languages. SKY Journal of Linguistics 17, 189215.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José. 1996. On the history of methinks: From impersonal construction to fossilized expression. Folia Linguistica Historica XVII(1–2), 153–169.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José. 2010. Subjectification and intersubjectification. In Jucker and Taavitsainen (eds.), 127–163.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José and Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2014a. Epistemic parentheticals with seem: Late Modern English in focus. In Hundt (ed.), 291307.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José and Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2014b. From clause to pragmatic marker: A study of the development of like parentheticals in American English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 15(1), 3661. DOI: 10.1075/jhp.15.1.03lop.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José and Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2014c. On the origin of parenthetical constructions: Epistemic/evidential parentheticals with seem and impersonal think. In Taavitsainen, Irma, Jucker, Andreas H, and Tuominen, Jukka (eds.), Diachronic corpus pragmatics, 189212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.243.12lop.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth-century English: History, variation, and standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2013. Using “small” corpora to document ongoing grammatical change. In Krug, Manfred and Schlüter, Julia (eds.), Research methods in language variation and change, 181194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Malone, Kemp. 1951. Chapters on Chaucer. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of Present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach, 2nd edn. Munich: Beck’sche Verlags Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Margolies, Lynn. 2012. Defending against “I’m just saying” and other verbal annoyances. Psych Central. http://psychcentral.com/lib/defending-against-im-just-saying-and-other-verbal-annoyances/00012762 (accessed August 9, 2015).Google Scholar
Masui, Michio. 1964. The structure of Chaucer’s rime words: An exploration into the poetic language of Chaucer. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Google Scholar
Matlock, Teenie. 1989. Metaphor and the grammaticalization of evidentials. In Hall, Kira, Meacham, Michael, and Shapiro, Richard (eds.), Proceedings of the fifteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 215225. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Mehl, Dieter. 1974. The audience of Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde. In Rowland, Beryl (ed.), Chaucer and Middle English studies in honour of Rossell Hope Robbins, 173189. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2006. Adjunct, modifier, discourse marker: On the various functions of right in the history of English. Folia Linguistica Historica 27(1–2), 141195. DOI: 10.1515/flin.27.1-2.141.Google Scholar
Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 2012. The connectives and, for, but, and only as clause and discourse type indicators in 16th- and 17th-century epistolary prose. In Meurman-Solin, Anneli, López-Couso, María José, and Los, Bettelou (eds.), Information structure and syntactic change in the history of English, 164196. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Shen, Yuan Kui, Aiden, Aviva Presser, Veres, Adrian, Gray, Matthew K., Brockman, William, et al. 2011. Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science 331(6014), 176182. DOI: 10.1126/science.1199644.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax. Vol. I: Concord, the parts of speech, and the sentence, Vol. II: Subordination, independent elements, and element order. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita 1977. How to refer to one’s own words: Speech-act modifying adverbials and the performative analysis. Journal of Linguistics 13, 177189. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700005387.Google Scholar
Molina, Clara. 2011. Routes for development in the pragmaticalization of sorry as a formulaic marker. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 24, 191212. DOI: 10.14198/raei.2011.24.08.Google Scholar
Müller, Simone. 2004. Discourse markers in native and non-native discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.138.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax. Part I. Parts of speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2012. Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199694372.001.0001.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.). 2011. The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.001.0001.Google Scholar
Ness, Lynn and Duncan-Rose, Caroline. 1982. A syntactic correlate to style switching in the Canterbury Tales. In J. Peter Maher, Allan R. Bomhard, and E. F. K. Koerner (eds.), Papers from the 3rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Hamburg, August 22–26, 1977, 293322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.13.19nes.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1990. Modelling functional differentiation and function loss: The case of but. In Adamson, Sylvia M., Law, Vivian A, Vincent, Nigel, and Wright, Susan (eds.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 337355. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.65.20nev.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1991 . But, only, just: Focusing adverbial change in Modern English 1500–1900. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207923.001.0001.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/hcp.5.Google Scholar
Ocampo, Francisco. 2006. Movement towards discourse is not grammaticalization: The evolution of claro from adjective to discourse particle in spoken Spanish. In Sagarra, Nuria and Toribio, Almeida Jacqueline (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 308319. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Patricia and Kellerman, Stewart. 2013. Just sayin’. The Grammarphobia Blog. www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2013/04/just-sayin.html (accessed August 9, 2015).Google Scholar
Oreström, Bengt. 1983. Turn-taking in English conversation. Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Ortega Barrera, Ivalla. 2012. A diachronic discussion of extenders in English remedies found in the Corpus of Early English Recipes (1350–1850). In Sauer, Hans and Waxenberger, Gaby (eds.), English historical linguistics 2008: Selected papers from the fifteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 15), Munich, 24–30 August 2008. Vol. II: Words, texts and genres, 223236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.324.13bar.Google Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola. 1981. “You know”: A discourse-functional view. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/pb.ii.7.Google Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola. 1982. The symbiotic relationship between pragmatic particles and impromptu speech. In Enkvist, Nils Erik (ed.), Improptu speech: A symposium, 147177. Åbo: Åbo Akademi.Google Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola. 1995. Pragmatic particles twenty years after. In Wårvik, Brita, Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa, and Hiltunen, Risto (eds.), Organization in discourse. Proceedings from the Turku Conference, 95108. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann. 1999. Whales, candlelight, and stuff like that: General extenders in English discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann. 2014. The role of pragmatic function in the grammaticalization of English general extenders. Pragmatics 24(1), 105129. DOI: 10.1075/prag.24.1.05ove.Google Scholar
PainintheEnglish.com http://painintheenglish.com/case/958 (accessed August 9, 2015).Google Scholar
Palander-Collin, Minna. 1996. The rise and fall of METHINKS. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language history: Studies based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence, 131149. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Palander-Collin, Minna. 1997. A medieval case of grammaticalization, me thinks. In Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja, and Heikkonen, K. K. (eds.), Grammaticalization at work: Studies of long-term developments in English, 371403. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Palander-Collin, Minna. 1999. Grammaticalization and social embedding: I THINK and METHINKS in Middle and Early Modern English. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peltola, Niilo. 1982/83. Comment clauses in Present-Day English. In Koskenniemi, Inna, Pennanen, Esko, and Aaltonen, Hilkka (eds.), Studies in classical and modern philology, 101113. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Perkins, Michael R. 1983. Modal expressions in English. London: Francis Pinter.Google Scholar
Pichler, Heike. 2016. Structure of discourse-pragmatic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/silv.13.Google Scholar
Pichler, Heike and Levey, Stephen. 2010. Variability in the co-occurrence of discourse functions. In O’Brien, L. J. and Giannoni, D. S. (eds.), University of Reading, Language Studies Working Papers 2, 1727. www.reading.ac.uk/internal/appling/Pichler_vol_2.pdf.Google Scholar
Pichler, Heike and Levey, Stephen. 2011. In search of grammaticalization in synchronic dialect data: General extenders in northeast England. English Language and Linguistics 15(3), 441471. DOI: 10.1017/S1360674311000128.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik. 1905. A grammar of Late Modern English. Part I: The sentence. Second half: The composite sentence. Groningen: P. Noordhof.Google Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik. 1917.A grammar of Late Modern English. Part II: The parts of speech. Section I, B. Pronouns and numerals. Groningen: P. Noordhof.Google Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik. 1926. A grammar of Late Modern English. Part II: The parts of speech. Section II: The verb and the particles. Groningen: P. Noordhof.Google Scholar
Puhn, Laurie. 2012. Whatever you do, don’t say “whatever.” The Huffington Post. August 29, 2012. Updated October 29, 2012. www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-puhn/whatever-you-do-dont-say-_b_1834705.html) (accessed June 20, 2016).Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2008. Whateverist nomads thinking in snippets. Language Log April 15, 2008. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=44.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo. 1992. Thoughts on degrammaticalization. Linguistics 30, 549560. DOI:10.1515/ling.1992.30.3.549.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo. 2001. Degrammaticalization or transcategorization? In Schaner-Wolles, Chris, Rennison, John, and Neubarth, Friedrich (eds.), Naturally! Linguistic studies in honour of Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler presented on the occasion of his 60th birthday, 393401. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Redeker, Gisela. 1991. Review of Schiffrin 1987. Linguistics 29(6), 11391172. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1991.29.6.1139.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1967. Old English þæt an ‘only.’ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 68, 409428.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1985. Expression of exclusiveness in Old English and the development of the adverb only. In Eaton et al. (eds.), 253267. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.41.19ris.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1991. On the history of that/ zero of object clause links in English. In Aijmer, Karin and Altenberg, Bengt (eds.), English corpus linguistics: Studies in honour of Jan Svartvik, 272289. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Robertson, Stuart. 1933. The Chaucerian-American “I guess.” Modern Language Notes 48, 3740.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne and Lange, Deborah. 1991. The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech 66(3), 227279. DOI: 10.2307/455799.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1973. Slifting. In Gross, Maurice, Halle, Morris, and Schützenberger, Marcel-Paul (eds.), The formal analysis of natural languages: Proceedings of the First International Conference, 133169. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Rouchota, Villy. 1998. Procedural meaning and parenthetical discourse markers. In Jucker and Ziv (eds.), 97–126. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.57.07rou.Google Scholar
Safire, William. 2002. That said: The battle cry of other handedness. New York Times. Jun. 23 E6. ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851–2006).Google Scholar
Salmon, Vivian. 1975. The representation of colloquial speech in The Canterbury Tales. In Ringbom, Håkan (ed.), Style and text: Studies presented to Nils Erik Enkvist, 263277. Stockholm: Skriptor.Google Scholar
Sauer, Hans. 2006. Ælfric and emotion. Poetica (Special issue: The expression of emotions in English with an emphasis on Old and Middle English, ed. by Hans Sauer and Michiko Ogura) 66, 3752.Google Scholar
Sauer, Hans. 2008. Interjection, emotion, grammar, and literature. In Amano, Masachiyo, Ogura, Michiko, and Ohkado, Masayuki (eds.), Historical Englishes in varieties of texts and contexts: The Global COE Program, International Conference 2007, 387403. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sauer, Hans. 2009. How the Anglo-Saxons expressed their emotions with the help of interjections. Brno Studies in English 35(2), 167183. www.phil.muni.cz/plonedata/wkaa/BSE/BSE_2009-35-2_Offprints/BSE2009-35-2-(167–183)%20Sauer.pdf.Google Scholar
Sauer, Hans. 2012. Interjections in Middle English: Chaucer’s “Reeve’s tale” and the Corpus of Middle English prose and verse. In Markus, Manfred, Iyeiri, Yoko, and Heuberger, Reinhard (eds.), Middle and Modern English corpus linguistics, 157175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/scl.50.15sau.Google Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne. 2002. Point of view and grammar: Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/sidag.11.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841.Google Scholar
Schneider, Stefan. 2007. Reduced parenthetical clauses in Romance languages. In Dehé and Kavalova (eds.), 237–258. DOI: 10.1075/la.106.13sch.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence C. 1985. Common discourse particles in English conversations: “like,” “well,” “y’know.” New York and London: Garland.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence C. 1999. Tutorial overview: Discourse markers. Lingua 107, 227265.Google Scholar
Schreiber, Peter A. 1972. Style disjuncts and the performative analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 3, 321347.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott. 1996. The pragmatics of independent si-clauses in Spanish. Hispanic Linguistics 8, 316351.Google Scholar
Sheidlower, Jesse. 2009. Whatever, it’s the most annoying word; duh. NPR All things considered. October 8, 2009. www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113627021 (accessed June 20, 2015).Google Scholar
Simon, Scott. 2010. It’s rude! It’s crude! It’s stupid! Just sayin’. NPR Simon says. 18 December 2010. www.npr.org/2010/12/18/132160770/its-rude-its-crude-its-stupid-just-sayin (accessed March 23, 2017).Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2000. The functions of I think in political discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10, 861882. DOI: 10.1111/j.1473–4192.2000.tb00139.x.Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie and Aijmer, Karin. 2007. The semantic field of modal certainty: A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Spamer, James. 1981. Beowulf 1–2 An argument for a new reading. English Studies 42(3), 210214.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deidre. 1996. Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd edn. London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stanley, E. G. 2000. Hwæt. In Roberts, Jane and Nelson, Janet (eds.), Essays on Anglo-Saxon and related themes in memory of Lynne Grundy, 525556. London: King’s College London, Centre for Late Antique & Medieval Studies.Google Scholar
Stein, Dieter. 1985. Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In Eaton et al. (eds.), 283–302. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.41.21ste.Google Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita. 1984. Questions and responses in English conversation. Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita. 1995. Some remarks on comment clauses. In Aarts and Meyer (eds.), 290302.Google Scholar
Stirling, Lesley. 1999. Isolated if-clauses in Australian English. In Collins, Peter and Lee, David (eds.), The clause in English: In honour of Rodney Huddleston, 273294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/slcs.45.18sti.Google Scholar
Stubbs, Michael. 1983. Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Svartvik, Jan. 1979. Well in conversation. In Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan (eds.), Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk, 167177. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Swan, Toril. 1988a. The development of sentence adverbs in English. Studia Linguistica 42(1), 117. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467–9582.1988.tb00782.x.Google Scholar
Swan, Toril. 1988b. Sentence adverbials in English: A synchronic and diachronic investigation. (Tromsø-Studier i Språkvitenskap 10.) Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Swan, Toril. 1991. Adverbial shifts: Evidence from Norwegian and English. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Historical English syntax, 409438. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Swan, Toril and Westvik, Olaf J. (eds.). 1997. Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 1995a. Interjections in Early Modern English: From imitation of spoken to conventions of written language. In Jucker (ed.), 439465. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.35.23taa.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 1995b. Narrative patterns of affect in four genres of the Canterbury tales. The Chaucer Review 30(2), 191210.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 1997. Exclamations in Late Middle English. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Studies in Middle English linguistics, 573607. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tabor, Whitney and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In Ramat, Anna Giacalone and Hopper, Paul J. (eds.), The limits of grammaticalization, 229272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.37.11tab.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2015. Making waves: The story of variationist sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781118455494.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2016. Teen talk: The language of adolescents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. and D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2007. The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective. English World-Wide 28(1), 4787. DOI: 10.1075/eww.28.1.04tag.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Denis, Derek. 2010. The stuff of change: General extenders in Toronto, Canada. Journal of English Linguistics 38(4), 335368. DOI: 10.1177/0075424210367484.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. “Object complements” and conversation. Studies in Language 26, 125164. DOI: 10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Mulac, Anthony. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott and Heine (eds.), Vol. II, 313–329. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.19.2.16tho.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid and Faya Cerqueiro, Fátima María. 2007. Saying please in Late Modern English. In Pérez-Guerra, Javier, González-Álvarez, Dolores, Bueno-Alonso, Jorge L., and Rama-Martínez, Esperanza (eds.), “Of varying language and opposing creed”: New insights into Late Modern English, 421444. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena and Walker, James A.. 2009. On the persistence of grammar in discourse formulas: A variationist study of that. Linguistics 47(1), 143. DOI: 10.1515/LING.2009.001.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel and Bäcklund, Ingegerd (eds.). 1986. English in speech and writing: A Symposium. (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Anglistica Upsaliensis, 60.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic–pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, Winfred P. and Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics, 245271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.24.09clo.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. In Axmaker, Shelley, Jaiser, Anne, and Singmaster, Helen (eds.), Proceedings of the fourteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 406416. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65, 3155. DOI: 10.2307/414841.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1991. English speech act verbs: A historical perspective. In Waugh, Linda R. and Rudy, Stephen (eds.), New vistas in grammar: Invariance and variation, 387406. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.49.24clo.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1992. Syntax. In Hogg, Richard (ed.), The Cambridge history of English. Vol. 1: The beginnings to 1066, 168289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264747.005.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. The conflict promises/threatens to escalate into war. In Guenter, J. S. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the nineteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 348358. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995a (version of 11/97). The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester, UK, August 1995. Available at www.stanford.edu/~traugott/ect-papersonline.html.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995b. Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation, 3154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1997. Subjectification and the development of epistemic meaning: The case of promise and threaten. In Swan and Westvik (eds.), 185210.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003a. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Joseph and Janda (eds.), 624–647.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003b. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Motives for language change, 124140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2008. “All that he endeavoured to prove was …”: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogual contexts. In Kempson, Ruth and Cooper, Robin (eds.), Language in flux: Dialogue coordination, language variation, change and evolution, 143177. London: Kings College Publications.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven, and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 2971. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2016. On the rise of types of clause-final pragmatic markers in English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17(1), 2654. DOI: 10.1075/jhp.17.1.02.tra.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd (eds.). 1991. Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. I: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues. Vol. II: Focus on types of grammatical markers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.19.1 and DOI: 10.1075/tsl.19.2.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and König, Ekkehard. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott and Heine (eds.), Vol. I, 189–218. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.19.1.10clo.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2008. Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In Trousdale, Graeme and Gisborne, Nikolas (eds.), Construction approaches to English grammar, 3367. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2012a. Grammaticalization, constructions, and the grammaticalization of constructions. In Davidse et al. (eds.), 167198. DOI: 10.1075/slcs.130.07tro.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2012b. Theory and data in diachronic Construction Grammar: The case of the what with construction. Studies in Language 36(3), 576602.Google Scholar
Urmson, J. O. 1952. Parenthetical verbs. Mind 61, 480496. DOI: 10.1093/mind/LXI.244.480.Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie. 2006. I guess, I suppose and I believe as pragmatic markers: Grammaticalization and functions. BELL: Belgian Essays on Language and Literature 4, 129149.Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie. 2010. A constructional taxonomy of I think and related expressions: Accounting for the variability of complement-taking mental predicates. English Language and Linguistics 14(3), 399427. DOI: 10.1017/S1360674310000134.Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie. 2011. Review of Helen Bromhead, The reign of truth and faith: Epistemic expressions in 17th and 18th century English. Functions of Language 18(2), 285291. DOI: 10.1075/fol.18.2.08van.Google Scholar
van de Pol, Nikki and Cuyckens, Hubert. 2013. Gradualness in change in English (augmented) absolutes. In Ramat, Anna Giacalone, Mauri, Caterina, and Molinelli, Piera (eds.), Synchrony and diachrony: A dynamic interface, 341365. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/slcs.133.01int.Google Scholar
van de Pol, Nikki and Petré, Peter. 2015. Why is there a Present-day English absolute? Studies in Language 39(1), 198228. DOI: 10.1075/sl.39.1.07pol.Google Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 1980. On speech act verbs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/pb.i.4.Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe, D’Hertefelt, Sarah, and An Van, linden. 2012. A typology of complement insubordination in Dutch. Studies in Language 36, 123153. DOI: 10.1075/sl.36.1.04ver.Google Scholar
Vincent, Sophie, Darbaky, Sarah, and Mettouchi, Amina. 2009. The grammaticalization of you know: From shared knowledge to control over the speaker. English Text Construction 2(2), 209227. DOI: 10.1075/etc.2.2.04vin.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. 1969. An historical syntax of the English language. Part three, first half: Syntactical units with two verbs. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. 1972. An historical syntax of the English language. Part two: Syntactical units with one verb (continued). Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Walkden, George. 2013. The status of hwæt in Old English. English Language and Linguistics 17(3), 465488. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674313000129.Google Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 2006. The rise of discourse markers in Italian: A specific type of language change. In Fischer (ed.), 61–76.Google Scholar
Warner, Richard G. 1985. Discourse connectives in English. New York: Garland. [Ph.D dissertation, Ohio State University, 1979].Google Scholar
Wårvik, Britta. 2013. Perspectives on narrative discourse markers: Focus on Old English þa. (English Department Publications 7.) Turku: Åbo Akademi University.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 1984. An analysis of epistemic possibility and probability. English Studies 65, 129140.Google Scholar
“Whatever” still seen as most annoying word or phrase, just sayin’. 2012. Marist Poll. December 12, 2012. http://maristpoll.marist.edu/1227-whatever-still-viewed-as-most-annoying-word-or-phrase-just-sayin/ (accessed June 20, 2016).Google Scholar
“Whatever,” most annoying word for seventh year. 2014. Marist Poll. December 12, 2014. http://maristpoll.marist.edu/1221-whatever-most-annoying-word-for-seventh-year/ (accessed June 20, 2016).Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1886. Essentials of English grammar for the use of schools. Boston, MA: Ginn & Company.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne. 2001. Spoken parentheticals. In Aijmer, Karin (ed.), A wealth of English: Studies in honor of Göran Kjellmer, 177193. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1997. Conditionals and counterfactuals: Conceptual primitives and linguistic universals. In Athanasiadou, Angeliki and Dirven, René (eds.), On conditionals again, 1559. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.143.04wie.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1986. Precision in vagueness: The semantics of English “approximatives.” Journal of Pragmatics 10, 597614. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(86)90016-0.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1987. English speech act verbs: A semantic dictionary. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195174748.001.0001.Google Scholar
Wilkins, David P. 1992. Interjections as deictics. Journal of Pragmatics 18(2/3), 119158. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(92)90049-H.Google Scholar
Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12, 5197. DOI: 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil.Google Scholar
Williams, R. O. 1895. Only – adversative – misplacement of adverb. Modern Language Notes 10(3), 6668. https://archive.org/details/jstor-2918581.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse. 2000. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization: “Methinks” there is some confusion. In Fischer, Rosenbach, and Stein (eds.), 355–370. DOI: 10.1075/slcs.53.17wis.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.). 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.49.Google Scholar
Wülfing, J. Ernst. 1901. Die Syntax in den Werken Alfreds des Grossen. Zweiter Teil. Bonn: P. Hanstein’s Verlag. https://archive.org/details/diesyntaxindenwe02wluoft.Google Scholar
Yale grammatical diversity project: English in North America http://microsyntax.sites.yale.edu.Google Scholar
Yang, Shihong. 1996. The conjunction only. M.A. Graduating Essay, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Zimmer, Ben. 2009a. “Annoying word” poll results: Whatever! Language Log. October 9, 2009. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1801 (accessed October 15, 2015).Google Scholar
Zimmer, Ben. 2009b. At the end of the day, what’s, you know, annoying? Whatever! Word routes: Exploring the pathways of our lexicon. www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/at-the-end-of-the-day-whats-you-know-annoying-whatever/ (accessed October 15, 2015).Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 2009. Whatever. Language Log. September 12, 2009. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1736 (accessed October 15, 2015).Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 2011. Highway whateverism. Arnold Zwicky’s blog, August 17, 2011. https://arnoldzwicky.org/2011/08/17/highway-whateverism/ (accessed September 13, 2016).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Laurel J. Brinton, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
  • Book: The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English
  • Online publication: 30 August 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316416013.013
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Laurel J. Brinton, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
  • Book: The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English
  • Online publication: 30 August 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316416013.013
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Laurel J. Brinton, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
  • Book: The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English
  • Online publication: 30 August 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316416013.013
Available formats
×