Discourse-anadeictic uses of manner demonstratives: A view from spoken Israeli Hebrew

References

Ariel, Mira. 1998. The linguistic status of the “here and now”. Cognitive Linguistics 9(3). 189–237.10.1515/cogl.1998.9.3.189Search in Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In Ted Sanders, Joost Schilperoord & Wilbert Spooren (eds.), Text representation, 29–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.8.04ariSearch in Google Scholar

Auer, Peter. 2006. Construction Grammar meets Conversation: Einige Überlegungen am Beispiel von ‚so‘-Konstruktionen. In Susanne Günthner & Imo Wolfgang (eds.), Konstruktionen in der Interaktion, 291–314. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110894158.291Search in Google Scholar

Auer, Peter. 2009a. Projection and minimalistic syntax in interaction. Discourse Processes 46(2–3). 180–205.10.1080/01638530902728934Search in Google Scholar

Auer, Peter. 2009b. Context and contextualization. In Jef Verschueren & Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), Key Notions in Pragmatics, 86–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hoph.1.05aueSearch in Google Scholar

Bolden, Galina B & Jenny Mandelbaum. 2017. The use of conversational co- remembering to corroborate contentious claims. Discourse Studies 19(1). 3–29.10.1177/1461445616683593Search in Google Scholar

Bruti, Silvia. 2004. Cataphoric complexity in spoken English. In Karin Aijmer & Anna- Brita Stenström (eds.), Discourse patterns in spoken and written corpora, 39–63. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.120.05bruSearch in Google Scholar

Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2013. Quotatives: New trends and sociolinguistic implications. Oxford: Wiley.10.1002/9781118584415Search in Google Scholar

Cornish, Francis. 1999. Anaphora, discourse, and understanding: Evidence from English and French. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cornish, Francis. 2010. Anaphora: Text-based or discourse-dependent? Functionalist vs. formalist accounts. Functions of Language 17(2). 207–241.10.1075/fol.17.2.03corSearch in Google Scholar

Cornish, Francis. 2011. ‘Strict’ anadeixis, discourse deixis and text structuring. Language Sciences 33(5). 753–767.10.1016/j.langsci.2011.01.001Search in Google Scholar

Cornish, Francis. 2012. Micro-syntax, macro-syntax, foregrounding and backgrounding in discourse – When indexicals target discursively subsidiary information. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 26. 6–34.10.1075/bjl.26.01corSearch in Google Scholar

Cornish, Francis. 2014. Indexicals and context: Context-bound prerequisite(s), ongoing processing and aftermaths of the discourse referring act. In Marion Fossard & Marie-José Béguelin (eds.), Nouvelles perspectives sur l’anaphore: Points de vue linguistique, psycholinguistique et acquisitionnel, 1–8. Bern: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Cornish, Francis & Anne Salazar Orvig. 2016. A critical look at the notion “pro-form”: Evidence from indexical markers, spoken discourse and (French) child language. Language Sciences 54. 58–76.10.1016/j.langsci.2015.11.001Search in Google Scholar

Deppermann, Arnulf. 2014. “Don’t get me wrong”: Recipient design by using negation to constrain an action’s interpretation. In Susanne GüNthner, Wolfgang Imo & Jörg BüCker (eds.), Grammar and dialogism: Sequential, syntactic, and prosodic patterns between emergence and sedimentation, 15–51. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110358612.15Search in Google Scholar

Deroey, Katrien L. B. 2015. Marking importance in lectures: Interactive and textual orientation. Applied Linguistics 36(1). 51–72.10.1093/applin/amt029Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.42Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4). 463–489.10.1515/COG.2006.015Search in Google Scholar

Ehlich, K.. 1982. Anaphora and deixis: Same, similar, or different?. In Robert J Jarvella & Wolfgang Klein (eds.), Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics, 315–338. Chichester: John Wiley.Search in Google Scholar

Ewing, Michael. 2014. Pragmatic uses of demonstratives in Cirebon Javanese conversation. In Anthony Robert Jukes (ed.), Deixis and spatial expressions in languages of Indonesia. [Special issue]. NUSA 56. 47–63.Search in Google Scholar

Gerner, Matthias. 2009. Deictic features of demonstratives: A typological survey with special reference to the Miao group. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics/La revue Canadienne de Linguistique 54(1). 43–90.10.1017/S0008413100001043Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.syn1Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, Charles. 2002. Time in action. Current Anthropology 43(S4). S19–S35.10.1086/339566Search in Google Scholar

Güldemann, Tom. 2008. Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronic survey (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 34). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110211450Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar, 4th edn. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203783771Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Hasselgård, Hilde. 2010. Adjunct adverbials in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511676253Search in Google Scholar

Henkin, Roni. 1999. Ma ben ‘haʃamajim kχulim ka.ele’, ‘haʃamajim kχulim kaze’ve ‘haʃamajim kχulim ke.ilu’: Al haʃimuʃ beχinujej remez maʃvim visodot aχerim lehistajgut [The difference between ‘the sky is blue ka.ele’, ‘the sky is blue kaze’, and ‘the sky is blue ke.ilu’: On the use of comparative demonstratives and other elements for hedging]. In Rina Ben-Shahar & Gideon Toury (eds.), Haivrit safa xaya 2 [Hebrew – a living language 2], 103–122. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John & Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1). 15–38.10.1177/019027250506800103Search in Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1996. Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. In Barbara Fox (ed.), Studies in anaphora, 206–254. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.33.08himSearch in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 2014. This, that and the other: Prospection, retraction and obviation in dialogical grammar. In Susanne Günthner, Wolfgang Imo & Jörg Bücker (eds.), Grammar and dialogism: Sequential, syntactic, and prosodic patterns between emergence and sedimentation, 271–300. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110358612.271Search in Google Scholar

Houtkoop, Hanneke & Harrie Mazeland. 1985. Turns and discourse units in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 9(5). 595–620.10.1016/0378-2166(85)90055-4Search in Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney, & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530Search in Google Scholar

Imo, Wolfgang. 2014. Elliptical structures as dialogical resources for the management of understanding. In Jörg Bücker, Susanne Günthner & Wolfgang Imo (eds.), Grammar and dialogism, 139–178. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110358612.139Search in Google Scholar

Janssen, Theo A. J. M. 2002. Deictic principles of pronominals, demonstratives, and tenses. In Frank Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference (Cognitive Linguistic Series 21), 151–193. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110899801.151Search in Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H & Yael Ziv. 1998. Discourse markers: Introduction. In Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, 1–12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.57Search in Google Scholar

Keevallik, Leelo. 2005. The deictic nii ‘so, in this way’ in interaction. In Daniele Monticelli, Renate Pajusalu & Anu Treikelder (eds.), From utterance to uttering and vice versa: Multidisciplinary views on deixis, 109–126. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.Search in Google Scholar

Keevallik, Leelo. 2010a. Pro-adverbs of manner as markers of activity transition. Studies in Language 34(2). 350–381.10.1075/sl.34.2.05keeSearch in Google Scholar

Keevallik, Leelo. 2010b. Marking boundaries between activities: The particle nii in Estonian. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(2). 157–182.10.1080/08351811003737697Search in Google Scholar

Keevallik, Leelo. 2011. Pro-forms as projective devices in interaction. Discourse Processes 48(6). 404–431.10.1080/0163853X.2011.559150Search in Google Scholar

Kibrik, Andrej A. 2011. Reference in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215805.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Kim, Stephanie Hyeri. 2015. Resisting the terms of polar questions through ani (‘no’)- prefacing in Korean conversation. Discourse Processes 52(4). 311–334.10.1080/0163853X.2014.954950Search in Google Scholar

König, Ekkehard. 2012. Le rôle des déictiques de manière dans le cadre d’une typologie de la deixis. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 107(1). 11–42.Search in Google Scholar

König, Ekkehard. 2015. Manner deixis as source of grammatical markers in Indo-European languages. In Carla Viti (ed.), Perspectives on historical syntax, 35–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.169.02konSearch in Google Scholar

König, Ekkehard & Carla Umbach. 2018. Demonstratives of manner, of quality, and of degree: A neglected subclass. In Marco Coniglio, Andrew Murphy, Eva Schlachter & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Atypical demonstratives, 285–328. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110560299-010Search in Google Scholar

Laury, Ritva. 1997. Demonstratives in interaction: The emergence of a definite article in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.7Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 2004. Deixis. In Laurence Horn (ed.), The handbook of pragmatics, 97–121. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756959.ch5Search in Google Scholar

Liddicoat, Anthony J. 2007. An introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Linell, Per. 2005. The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203342763Search in Google Scholar

Maschler, Yael. 2009. Metalanguage in interaction: Hebrew discourse markers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.181Search in Google Scholar

Maschler, Yael. 2012. Emergent projecting constructions: The case of Hebrew yada (‘know’). Studies in Language 36(4). 785–847.10.1075/sl.36.4.03masSearch in Google Scholar

Miestamo, Matti. 2009. Negation. In Frank Brisard, Jan-Ola Östman & Jeff Verschueren (eds.), Grammar, meaning and pragmatics, 208–229. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hoph.5.12mieSearch in Google Scholar

Müller, Simone. 2005. Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.138Search in Google Scholar

Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2015. Grammar, projection and turn-organization: (il) y a NP ‘there is NP’ as a projector construction in French talk-in-interaction. In Arnulf Deppermann & Susanne Günthner (eds.), Temporality in interaction, 173–199. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slsi.27.06pekSearch in Google Scholar

Rühlemann, Christoph. 2006. Coming to terms with conversational grammar: ‘Dislocation’ and ‘dysfluency’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(4). 385–409.10.1075/ijcl.11.4.03ruhSearch in Google Scholar

Rühlemann, Christoph. 2007. Conversation in context: A corpus-driven approach. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Rühlemann, Christoph, Andrej Bagoutdinov & Matthew Brook O’Donnell. 2011. Windows on the mind: Pauses in conversational narrative. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16(2). 198–230.10.1075/bct.52.03ruhSearch in Google Scholar

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1980. Meta‐talk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry 50(3–4). 199–236.10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00021.xSearch in Google Scholar

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1990. Between text and context: Deixis, anaphora, and the meaning of then. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 10(3). 245–270.10.1515/text.1.1990.10.3.245Search in Google Scholar

Selting, Margret. 2000. The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society 29(4). 477–517.10.1017/S0047404500004012Search in Google Scholar

Shor, Leon. 2016. Cognitive and interactional motivations for prosodic phrasing: A corpus-based analysis of the simple clause in spoken Israeli Hebrew. CHIMERA: Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies 3(2). 325–343.Search in Google Scholar

Shor, Leon. forthcoming a. “Lo, ata ʦodek bemea aχuz” – ʃimuʃim proʦeduralijim ʃel milat haʃlila lo [“No, you’re one hundred percent right” – Procedural uses of the negator lo]. Balshanut Ivrit [Hebrew linguistics].Search in Google Scholar

Shor, Leon. forthcoming b. Negation in Israeli Hebrew. In Ruth Berman & Bracha Nir (eds.), Usage Based Studies in Modern Hebrew. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Smith, Michael B. 2004. Cataphoric pronouns as mental space designators. In Ellen Contini-Morava, Robert S. Kirsner & Betsy Rodriguez-Bachiller (eds.), Cognitive and communicative approaches to linguistic analysis, 61–90. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sfsl.51.04smiSearch in Google Scholar

Taylor, Talbot J. 1997. Theorizing language: Analysis, normativity, rhetoric, history. Amsterdam: Pergamon.Search in Google Scholar

Webber, Bonnie L. 1988. Discourse deixis: Reference to discourse segments. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) 26. 113–122.10.3115/982023.982037Search in Google Scholar

Webber, Bonnie L. 1991. Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes 6(2). 107–135.10.1080/01690969108406940Search in Google Scholar

Wu, Yián. 2004. Spatial demonstratives in English and Chinese: Text and cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.126Search in Google Scholar

Ziv, Yael. 2006. Osim kaze dibur yaʃir [Doing like direct speech]. In Rina Ben Shachar & Gideon Toury (eds.), Haivrit safa xaya 4 [Hebrew – A living language 4], 141–156. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.Search in Google Scholar