Stopgap subordinators and and but: A non-canonical structure emergent from interactional needs and typological requirements

References

Antaki, Charles & Margaret Wetherell. 1999. Show concessions. Discourse Studies 1(1). 7–27.10.1177/1461445699001001002Search in Google Scholar

Barth, Dagmar. 2000. “that’s true, although not really, but still”: Expressing concession in spoken English. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 411–437. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219043-017Search in Google Scholar

Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar. 2014. Dialogism and the emergence of final particles: The case of and. In Susanne Günthner, Wolfgang Imo & Jörg Bücker (eds.), Grammar and dialogism, 335–366. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110358612.335Search in Google Scholar

Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen 2011. Action, prosody and emergent constructions: The case of and. In Peter Auer & Stephan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent, 263–292. Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110229080.263Search in Google Scholar

Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. The imperative in English. In To honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, Vol. 1, 335–362. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783111604763-027Search in Google Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1979. Pronouns in discourse. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax, 289–309. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 1992. The historical present in Charlotte Brontë’s novels: Some discourse functions. Style 26(2). 221–244.Search in Google Scholar

Bullinger, Etherbelt W. 1898. Figures of speech used in the Bible: Explained and illustrated. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode/New York: E. & J. B. Young & Co.Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2002. Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In Talmy Givón & Bertram F. Malle (eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language, 109–134. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.53.07bybSearch in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan & Joanne Scheibman. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37(4). 575–596.10.1515/ling.37.4.575Search in Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn & Diane Blakemore. 2005. Introduction to coordination: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Lingua 115(4). 353–358.10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.006Search in Google Scholar

Carter, Ronald & Michael McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cook, Claire Kehrwald. 1985. Line by line: How to edit your own writing. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Search in Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting. 2001. Introducing interactional linguistics. In Margret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.) Studies in interactional linguistics, 1–22. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.10Search in Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Sandra A. Thompson. 2000. Concessive patterns in conversation. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 381–410. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219043.4.381Search in Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Sandra A. Thompson. 2005. A linguistic practice for retracting overstatements: ‘Concessive Repair’. In Auli Hakulinen & Margret Selting (eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction, 257–288. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.17.14couSearch in Google Scholar

Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cristofaro, Sonia. 2014. Is there really a syntactic category of subordination? In Laura Visapää, Jyrki Kalliokoski & Helena Sorva (eds.), Contexts of subordination: Cognitive, typological and discourse perspectives, 73–91. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.249.03criSearch in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff. 1997. Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28(2). 195–217.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.003.0013Search in Google Scholar

Curme, George O. 1931. A grammar of the English language. Boston: Heath.Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2001. The ordering distribution of main and adverbial clauses. Language 77(2). 433–455.10.1353/lan.2001.0152Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2005. Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics 43(3). 449–470.10.1515/ling.2005.43.3.449Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2008. Iconicity of sequence: A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics 19(3). 465–490.10.1515/9783110335255.225Search in Google Scholar

Du Bois, John. W., Wallace L. Chafe, Charles Meyer & Sandra A. Thompson. 2000. Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, Part One. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/research/santa-barbara-corpus.Search in Google Scholar

Du Bois, John. W., Wallace L. Chafe, Charles Meyer, Sandra A. Thompson & Nii Martey. 2003. Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, Part Two. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/research/santa-barbara-corpus.Search in Google Scholar

Du Bois, John. W. & Robert Englebretson. 2004. Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, Part Three. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/research/santa-barbara-corpus.Search in Google Scholar

Du Bois, John. W. & Robert Englebretson. 2005. Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, Part Four. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/research/santa-barbara-corpus.Search in Google Scholar

Du Bois, John. W., Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Susanna Cumming & Danae Paolino. 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. In Jane A. Edwards & Martin D. Lampert (eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research, 45–89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Emonds, Joseph. 1970. Root and structure-preserving transformations. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Search in Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Foley, William A. & Robert D. van Valin, Jr. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E. 2004. Contingency and units in interaction. Discourse Studies 6(1). 27–52.10.1177/1461445604039438Search in Google Scholar

Forsyth, John. 1970. A grammar of aspect: Usage and meaning in the Russian verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Green, Georgia M. 1976. Main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses. Language 52(2). 382–397.10.2307/412566Search in Google Scholar

Guide to grammar and writing: Rules for comma usage. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm (accessed 12 February 2015).Search in Google Scholar

Hancil, Sylvie, Margje Post & Alexander Haselow. 2015. Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective. In Sylvie Hancil, Alexander Haselow & Margje Post (eds.), Final particles, 3–35. Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110375572-001Search in Google Scholar

Haselow, Alexander. 2011. Discourse marker and modal particle: The functions of utterance-final then in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14). 3603–3623.10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.002Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Coordination. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and linguistic description II: Complex constructions, 2nd edn., 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511619434.001Search in Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511554285Search in Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hinds, John & Nobuo Okada. 1975. Backward pronominalization across coordinate structures. Linguistic Inquiry 6(2). 330–335.Search in Google Scholar

Hodges, John C., Winifred Bryan Horner, Suzanne Strobeck Webb & Robert Keith Miller. 1994. Harbrace college handbook, revised 12th edn. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Hooper, Joan B. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4(4). 465–497.Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1979a. Some observations on the typology of focus and aspect in narrative language. Studies in Language 3(1). 37–64.10.1075/sl.3.1.03hopSearch in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1979b. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax, 213–241. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent grammar. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society(BLS 13). 139–157.10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 2002. Hendiadys and auxiliation in English. In Joan L. Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson, 145–173. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.110.09hopSearch in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299.10.1353/lan.1980.0017Search in Google Scholar

Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke. 1995. Meeting both ends: Standardization and recipient design in telephone survey interviews. In Paul Ten Have & George Psathas (eds.), Situated order: Studies in the social organization of talk and embodied activities, 91–106. Washington, DC: University Press of America.Search in Google Scholar

Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita. 2008. Contrast, concessive, and corrective: Toward a comprehensive study of opposition relations. Journal of Pragmatics 40(4). 646–675.10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.001Search in Google Scholar

Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita & Katsunobu Izutsu. 2014a. Truncation and backshift: Two pathways to sentence-final coordinating conjunctions. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 15(1). 62–92.10.1075/jhp.15.1.04izuSearch in Google Scholar

Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita & Katsunobu Izutsu. 2014b. ‘Leap’ or ‘continuum’?: Grammaticalization pathways from conjunctions to sentence-final particles. In Mike Borkent, Barbara Dancygier & Jennifer Hinnell (eds.), Language and the creative mind, 83–99. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1931. A modern English grammar on historical principles, Part 4. Heidelberg: Winter.Search in Google Scholar

Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Koivisto, Aino. 2012. Discourse patterns for turn-final conjunctions. Journal of Pragmatics 44(10). 1254–1272.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.006Search in Google Scholar

Koivisto, Aino, Ritva Laury & Eeva-Leena Seppänen. 2011. Syntactic and actional characteristics of Finnish että-clauses. In Ritva Laury & Ryoko Suzuki (eds.), Subordination in conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective, 69–102. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slsi.24.05koiSearch in Google Scholar

Kortmann, Bernd. 1997. Adverbial subordination: A typology and history of adverbial subordinators based on European languages. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110812428Search in Google Scholar

Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1972. Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1969. On pronominalization and the chain of command. In David A. Reibel & Sanford A. Schane (eds.), Modern studies in English: Readings in transformational grammar, 160–186. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2014. Subordination in a dynamic account of grammar. In Laura Visapää, Jyrki Kalliokoski & Helena Sorva (eds.), Contexts of subordination: Cognitive, typological and discourse perspectives, 17–72. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.249.02lanSearch in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey N. 1987. Meaning and the English verb. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 1988. Toward the typology of clause-linkage. In John Haiman & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Clause-combining in grammar and discourse, 181–225. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.18.09lehSearch in Google Scholar

Lenker, Ursula. 2014. Knitting and splitting information: Medial placement of linking adverbials in the history of English. In Simone E. Pfenninger, Olga Timofeeva, Anne-Christine Gardner, Alpo Honkapohja, Marianne Hundt & Daniel Schreier (eds.), Contact, variation and change in the history of English, 11–38. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1987. Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization. (Technical Report ISI/RS-87-190). Los Angeles, CA: USC Information Sciences Institute.Search in Google Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. The structure of discourse and ‘subordination.’ In John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Clause-combining in grammar and discourse, 275–329. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.18.12matSearch in Google Scholar

Mittwoch, Anita. 1983. Backward anaphora and discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 7(2). 129–139.10.1016/0378-2166(83)90048-6Search in Google Scholar

Mourelatos, Alexander P. D. 1978. Events, processes, and states. Linguistics and Philosophy 2(3). 415–434.10.1007/BF00149015Search in Google Scholar

Mulder, Jean & Sandra A. Thompson. 2008. The grammaticization of but as a final particle in English conversation. In Ritva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions, 179–204. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.80.09mulSearch in Google Scholar

Mulder, Jean, Sandra A. Thompson & Cara Penry Williams. 2009. Final but in Australian English conversation. In Pam Peters, Peter Collins & Adam Smith (eds.), Comparative studies in Australian and New Zealand English: Grammar and beyond, 339–359. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/veaw.g39.19mulSearch in Google Scholar

Ochs, Elinor & Lisa Capps. 2001. Living narrative: Creating lives in everyday storytelling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674041592Search in Google Scholar

Ohori, Toshio. 2000. Gengochishiki toshite no koobun: Fukubun no ruikeiron ni mukete [Constructions as linguistic knowledge: Toward a typology of complex sentences]. In Shigeru Sakahara (ed.), Ninchigengogaku no Hatten [Advances in cognitive linguistics], 281–315. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Pinheiro, Ana P., Neguine Rezaii, Paul G. Nestor, Andréia Rauber, Kevin M. Spencer & Margaret Niznikiewicz. 2016. Did you or I say pretty, rude or brief?: An ERP study of the effects of speaker’s identity on emotional word processing. Brain and Language 153–154. 38–49.10.1016/j.bandl.2015.12.003Search in Google Scholar

Polanyi-Bowditch, Livia. 1976. Why the whats are when: Mutually contextualizing realms of narrative. Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society(BLS 2). 59–77.10.3765/bls.v2i0.2312Search in Google Scholar

Pustejovsky, James. 2005. The syntax of event structure. In Inderjeet Mani, James Pustejovsky & Robert Gaizauskas (eds.), The language of time: A reader, 33–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya. 1984. Principles of gestalt perception in the temporal organization of narrative texts. Linguistics 22. 779–809.10.1515/ling.1984.22.6.779Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Issues of relevance for discourse analysis: Contingency in action, interaction, and co-participant context. In Eduard H. Hovy & ‎Donia R. Scott (eds.), Computational and conversational discourse: Burning issues – an interdisciplinary account, 3–35. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/978-3-662-03293-0_1Search in Google Scholar

Talmy, Leonard. 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language, Vol. 4: Syntax, 625–649. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra. A. & Robert E. Longacre. 1985. Adverbial clauses. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description II: Complex constructions, 171–234. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tomlin, Russell S. 1985. Foreground-background information and the syntax of subordination. Text 5(1–2). 85–122.10.1515/text.1.1985.5.1-2.85Search in Google Scholar

Trask, Robert L. 1992. A dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistics. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

van Hoek, Karen. 1995. Conceptual reference points: A cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language 71(2). 311–340.10.2307/416165Search in Google Scholar

Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornel University Press.10.7591/9781501743726Search in Google Scholar

Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2005. Two types of coordination in clause combining. Lingua 115(4). 611–626.10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.018Search in Google Scholar

Wallace, Stephen. 1982. Figure and ground: The interrelationships of linguistic categories. In Paul J. Hopper (ed.), Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics, 210–223. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.1.14walSearch in Google Scholar

Wasow, Thomas. 1997. End-weight from the speaker’s perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26(3). 347–361.10.1023/A:1025080709112Search in Google Scholar

Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal behavior (CSLI lecture notes, no. 145). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Wolfson, Nessa. 1979. The conversational historical present alternation. Language 55(1). 168–182.10.2307/412521Search in Google Scholar

Wolfson, Nessa. 1982. The conversational historical present in American English narrative. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.10.1515/9783110851694Search in Google Scholar

Wolfson, Nessa. 1989. The conversational historical present. Linx 20(1). 135–151.10.3406/linx.1989.1125Search in Google Scholar

Yuasa, Etsuyo & Jerry M. Sadock. 2002. Pseudo-subordination: A mismatch between syntax and semantics. Journal of Linguistics 38. 87–111.10.1017/S0022226701001256Search in Google Scholar