Left-peripheral bottom line sequences

References

Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think – an English modal particle. In Toril Swan & Olaf Jansen Westvik (eds.). Modality in Germanic languages. Historical and comparative perspectives, 1–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin. 2007. The interface between discourse and grammar: The fact is that. In Agnès Celle & Ruth Huart (eds.). Connectives as discourse landmarks, 31–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Berthe, Florine. 2021. De la clivée en th- à la structure the-N-is en anglais oral : vers une lecture discursive, prosodique et dialogique. Metz: Université de Lorraine, Universität Augsburg PhD Thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Search in Google Scholar

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

Brenier, Jason M. & Laura Michaelis. 2005. Optimization via syntactic amalgam: Syntax-prosody mismatch and copula doubling. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1). 45–88. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.45.Search in Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic developments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cuenca, Maria Josep & Ludivine Crible. 2019. Co-occurrence of discourse markers in English: From juxtaposition to composition. Journal of Pragmatics 41(5). 899–914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.010.Search in Google Scholar

Curzan, Anne. 2012. Revisiting the reduplicative copula with corpus-based evidence. In Tertu Nevalainen & Elizabeth C. Traugott (eds.). The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 211–221. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Davies, Mark. 2008. The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): One billion words, 1990–2019. Available online at: https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/.Search in Google Scholar

Dehé, Nicole & Yordanka Kavalova. 2007. Parentheticals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Delahunty, Gerald. 2012. An analysis of the thing is that sentences. Pragmatics 22(1). 41–78.Search in Google Scholar

Detges, Ulrich & Richard Waltereit. 2014. Moi je ne sais pas vs. Je ne sais pas moi: French disjoint pronouns in the left vs. right periphery. In Kate Beeching & Ulrich Detges (eds.). Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change, 24–46. Leiden: Brill.Search in Google Scholar

Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of functional grammar, part 2: Complex and derived constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Ermann, Britt. 2001. Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 1337–1359. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(00)00066-7.Search in Google Scholar

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

Fetzer, Anita. 2014. I think, I mean and I believe in political discourse: Collocates, functions and distribution. Functions of Language 21(1). 67–94. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.1.05fet.Search in Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce. 2013. Combinations of contrastive discourse markers in English. International Review of Pragmatics 5. 318–340. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-13050209.Search in Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce. 2015. The combining of discourse markers: A beginning. Journal of Pragmatics 86. 48–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.007.Search in Google Scholar

Haselow, Alexander. 2015. Left vs. right periphery in grammaticalization: The case of anyway. In Andrew D. M. Smith, Graeme Trousdale & Richard Waltereit (eds.). New directions in grammaticalization research, 157–186. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Haselow, Alexander. 2017. Spontaneous spoken English: An integrated approach to the emergent grammar of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Haselow, Alexander. 2019. Discourse marker sequences: Insights into the serial order of communicative tasks in real-time turn production. Journal of Pragmatics 146. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.003.Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva & Haiping Long. 2013. An outline of discourse grammar. In Shannon T. Bischoff & Carmen Jany (eds.). Functional approaches to language, 155–206. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2015. Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 88. 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008.Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. 139–157. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834.Search in Google Scholar

Hundt, Marianne. 2022. Constructional variation and change in N-is focaliser constructions. In Lotte Sommerer & Evelien Keizer (eds.). English noun phrases from a functional-cognitive perspective: Current issues, 206–233. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas. 1993. The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19(5). 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004-9.Search in Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2013. Development of comment clauses. In Bas Aarts, Joanne Close, Geoffrey Leech & Sean Wallis (eds.). The English verb phrase: Investigating recent language change with corpora, 286–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Keizer, Evelien. 2013. The X is (is) construction. In J. Lachlan Mackenzie & Hella Olbertz (eds.). Casebook in functional discourse grammar, 213–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Kiesling, Scott F. 2020. Investment in stancetaking: I mean and just sayin. Language Sciences 82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101333.Search in Google Scholar

Klumm, Matthias. 2024. Peripheries and their internal structure: An empirical analysis of left- and right-peripheral sequences across written English discourse. Linguistics. 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2023-0242.Search in Google Scholar

Koops, Christian & Arne Lohmann. 2015. A quantitative approach to the grammaticalization of discourse markers. Evidence from their sequencing behavior. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20(2). 232–259. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.2.04koo.Search in Google Scholar

Koops, Christian & Arne Lohmann. 2022. Explaining reversible discourse marker sequences: A case study of and and so. Journal of Pragmatics 191. 156–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.014.Search in Google Scholar

Le Lan, Barbara. 2007. Orchestrating conversation: The multifunctionality of well and you know in the joint construction of verbal interaction. In Agnès Celle & Ruth Huart (eds.). Connectives as discourse landmarks, 103–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Lohmann, Arne & Christian Koops. 2016. Aspects of discourse marker sequencing. Empirical challenges and theoretical implications. In Kaltenböck Gunther, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds.). Outside the clause. Form and function of extra-clausal constituents, 417–445. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Mantlik, Annette & Hans-Jörg Schmid. 2018. That-complementiser omission in N + be + that-clauses. In Alex Ho-Cheong Leung & Wim van der Wurff (eds.). The noun phrase in English: Past and present, 187–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Massam, Diane. 2017. Extra be: The syntax of shared shell-noun constructions in English. Language 93(1). 121–152. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0004.Search in Google Scholar

Miller, Jim & Regina Weinert. 1998. Spontaneous spoken language. Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Oates, Sarah Louise. 2000. Multiple discourse marker occurrence: Creating hierarchies for Natural Language. In Proceedings of the 3rd CLUK colloquium, 41–45. Brighton: Brighton University.Search in Google Scholar

Östman, Jan-Ola. 1981. You know: A discourse functional approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Pinson, Mathilde. 2022. The (inter)subjectification of bottom line phrases. In Gaétane Dostie & Agnès Tutin (ed.), Lingvisticae Investigationes. Special Issue: La Phraséologie dans les interactions orales et écrites, 276–295. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Pinson, Mathilde. 2024. From the financial to the metatextual: The emergence of discursive bottomline. In Cristina Petraş, Sonia Berbinski, Daciana Vlad & Raluca-Nicoleta Balaţchi (eds.). Marqueurs métalinguistiques : Émergence, discours, variation, 59–86. Lausanne: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Ranger, Graham. 2024. Metadiscursive parametering with position and cooccurrence: The case of ‘adverbial though’. In Conference Discourse markers: Markers in discourse and markers on discourse, 21–22. France: Lorraine University.Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey, Emmanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243.Search in Google Scholar

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2000. English abstract nouns as conceptual shells. From corpus to cognition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2001. Presupposition can be a bluff: How abstract nouns can be used as presupposition triggers. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 1529–1552. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(01)00027-3.Search in Google Scholar

Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2018. Shell nouns in English – a personal roundup. Caplletra 64. 109–128. https://doi.org/10.7203/caplletra.64.11368.Search in Google Scholar

Schourup, Lawrence. 1985. Common discourse particles in English conversation. New York: Garland.Search in Google Scholar

Shibasaki, Reiko. 2014a. On the development of the point is and related issues in the history of American English. English Linguistics 31(1). 79–113. https://doi.org/10.9793/elsj.31.1_79.Search in Google Scholar

Shibasaki, Reiko. 2014b. On the grammaticalization of the thing is and related issues in the history of American English. In M. Michael Adams, Laurel J. Brinton & R. D. Fulk (eds.). Studies in the history of English language VI, 99–121. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Sidnell, Jack. 2007. Look-prefaced turns in first and second position: Launching, interceding and redirecting action. Discourse Studies 9. 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607076204.Search in Google Scholar

Smith Stvan, Laurel. 2014. Truth is, sentence-initial shell nouns are showing up bare. In Ludmila Veselovská & Markéta Janebová (eds.). Complex visibles out there, 591–606. Olomouc: Palacký University.Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2022. Discourse structuring markers in English: A historical constructionist perspective on pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graham Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tuggy, David. 1996. The thing is is that people talk that way. The question is is why? In Eugene H. Casad (ed.). Cognitive linguistics in the Redwoods. The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics, 713–752. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Wang, Haixia. 2016. The (X) thing is: From a matrix clause to a discourse marker. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52. 555–577.Search in Google Scholar