Cooptation as a discourse strategy

References

Ackema, Peter & Ad Neeleman. 2004. Beyond morphology: Interface conditions on word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267286.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.10Search in Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. 2003. The discourse particle ‘well’ and its equivalents in Swedish and Dutch. Linguistics 41(1). 1123–1161.10.1515/ling.2003.036Search in Google Scholar

Auer, Peter. 1996. The pre-front field position in spoken German and its relevance as a grammaticalization position. Pragmatics 6. 295–322.10.1075/prag.6.3.03aueSearch in Google Scholar

Auer, Peter. 1997. Formen und Funktionen der Vor-Vorfeldbesetzung im gesprochenen Deutsch. In Peter Schlobinski (ed.), Syntax des gesprochenen Deutsch, 55–92. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.10.1007/978-3-322-88924-9_3Search in Google Scholar

Bayer, Klaus. 1973. Verteilung und Funktion der sogenannten Parenthese in Texten. Deutsche Sprache 1. 64–115.Search in Google Scholar

Beeman, Mark & Christine Chiarello. 1998. Complementary right- and left-hemisphere language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 7(1). 1–8.10.1111/1467-8721.ep11521805Search in Google Scholar

Belazi, Heidi, Edward Rubin & Almeida Jacqueline Toribio. 1994. Code switching and X-Bar theory: The functional head constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 25(2). 221–237.Search in Google Scholar

Berk-Seligson, Susan. 1986. Linguistic constraints on intrasentential code-switching: A study of Spanish/Hebrew bilingualism. Language in Society 15. 313–348.10.1017/S0047404500011799Search in Google Scholar

Berman, Steven M., Mark A. Mandelkern, Hao Phan & Eran Zaidel. 2003. Complementary hemispheric specialization for word and accent detection. NeuroImage 19. 319–331.10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00120-4Search in Google Scholar

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

Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486456Search in Google Scholar

Blakemore, Diane. 2005. And-parentheticals. Journal of Pragmatics 37. 1165–1181.10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.003Search in Google Scholar

Blakemore, Diane. 2007. ‘Or’-parentheticals, ‘that is’-parentheticals and the pragmatics of reformulation. Journal of Linguistics 43. 311–339.10.1017/S0022226707004598Search in Google Scholar

Blonder, Lee Xenakis, Dawn Bowers & Kenneth M. Heilman. 1991. The role of the RH in emotional communication. Brain 114(3). 1115–1127.10.1093/brain/114.3.1115Search in Google Scholar

Bloom, R., Joan C. Borod, Loraine K. Obler & L. Gerstman. 1992. Impact of emotional content on discourse production in patients with unilateral brain damage. Brain and Language 42. 153–164.10.1016/0093-934X(92)90122-USearch in Google Scholar

Borod, Joan C., Ronald L. Bloom, Adam M. Brickman, Luba Nakhutina & Elizabeth A. Curko. 2002. Emotional processing deficits in individuals with unilateral brain damage. Applied Neuropsychology 9(1). 23–36.10.1207/S15324826AN0901_4Search in Google Scholar

Borod, Joan C., Ronald L. Bloom & Cornelia Santschi Haywood. 1998. Verbal aspects of emotional communication in the right cerebral hemisphere. In Mark Beeman & Christine Chiarello (eds.), Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience, 285–307. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Brandt, Margareta. 1996. Subordination und Parenthese als Mittel der Informationsstrukturierung in Texten. In Wolfgang Motsch (ed.), Ebenen der Textstruktur: Sprachliche und kommunikative Prinzipien, 211–240. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110918533.211Search in Google Scholar

Breitenstein, Caterina, Irene Daum & Hermann Ackermann. 1998. Emotional processing following cortical and subcortical brain damage: Contribution of the fronto-striatal circuitry. Behavioural Neurology 11. 29–42.10.1155/1998/579029Search in Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions (Topics in English Linguistics 19). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110907582Search in Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511551789Search in Google Scholar

Brody, Jill. 1987. Particles borrowed from Spanish as discourse markers into Mayan languages. Anthropological Linguistics 29. 507–521.Search in Google Scholar

Brody, Jill. 1993. Borrowing the ‘unborrowable’: Spanish discourse markers in indigenous American languages. In Carmen Silva-Corvalán (ed.), Spanish in four continents, 132–147. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Burton-Roberts, Noel. 2005. Parentheticals. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edition, volume 9 179–82. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/02013-7Search in Google Scholar

Butler, Christopher S. 2003. Structure and function: A guide to three major structural-functional theories, part 2: From clause to discourse and beyond (Studies in Language Companion Series 63). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.64Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620539Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. & Jean E. Fox Tree. 2002. Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition 84. 73–111.10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

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

Croft, William & Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803864Search in Google Scholar

Dehé, Nicole. 2007. The relation between syntactic and prosodic parenthesis. In Nicole Dehé & Yordanka Kavalova (eds.), Parentheticals (Linguistics Today 106), 261–285. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.106.15dehSearch in Google Scholar

Dehé, Nicole. 2009. Clausal parentheticals, intonational phrasing, and prosodic theory. Journal of Linguistics 45(3). 569–615.10.1017/S002222670999003XSearch in Google Scholar

Dehé, Nicole. 2014. Parentheticals in spoken English: The syntax-prosody relation (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139032391Search in Google Scholar

Dehé, Nicole & Yordanka Kavalova (eds.). 2007. Parentheticals (Linguistics Today 106). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.106Search in Google Scholar

Dehé, Nicole & Anne Wichmann. 2010. Sentence-initial I think (that) and I believe (that): Prosodic evidence for use as main clause, comment clause and discourse marker. Studies in Language 34(1). 36–74.10.1075/sl.34.1.02dehSearch in Google Scholar

Dér, Csilla Ilona. 2010. On the status of discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57(1). 3–28.10.1556/ALing.57.2010.1.1Search in Google Scholar

Devinsky, Orrin. 2000. Right cerebral hemisphere dominance for a sense of corporeal and emotional self. Epilepsy and Behavior 1(1). 60–73.10.1006/ebeh.2000.0025Search in Google Scholar

Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of functional grammar, part 2: Complex and derived constructions (Functional Grammar Series 21). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110218374Search in Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 2005. A semantic approach to English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Dostie, Gaetane. 2004. Pragmaticalisation et marqueurs discursifs: Analyse sémantique et traitement lexicographique. Brussels: De Boeck & Larcier.10.3917/dbu.dosti.2004.01Search in Google Scholar

Du Bois, John. 1985. Competing motivations. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax (Typological Studies in Language 6), 343–366. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.6.17dubSearch in Google Scholar

Espinal, M. Teresa. 1991. The representation of disjunct constituents. Language 67. 726–762.10.2307/415075Search in Google Scholar

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

Fforde, Jasper. 2003. The well of lost plots. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, J. Charles & Colin Baker. 2015. A frames approach to semantic analysis. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), 791–816. The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fischer, Kerstin. 2000. From cognitive semantics to lexical pragmatics: The functional polysemy of discourse particles. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110828641Search in Google Scholar

Fischer, Kerstin (ed.). 2006. Approaches to discourse particles (Studies in Pragmatics 1). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Flores-Ferrán, Nydia. 2014. So pues entonces: An examination of bilingual discourse markers in Spanish oral narratives of personal experience of New York City-born Puerto Ricans. Sociolinguistic Studies 8(1). 57–83.10.1558/sols.v8i1.57Search in Google Scholar

Frake, Charles O. 1977. Plying frames can be dangerous: Some reflections on methodology in cognitive anthropology. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Institute for Comparative Human Cognition 1. 1–7.Search in Google Scholar

Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman. 2005. Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics 37. 1752–1778.10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013Search in Google Scholar

Friederici, Angela D. & Kai Alter. 2004. Lateralization of auditory language functions: A dynamic dual pathway model. Brain and Language 89(2). 267–276.10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00351-1Search in Google Scholar

Gaines, Philip. 2011. The multifunctionality of discourse operator okay: Evidence from a police interview. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 3291–3315.10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.005Search in Google Scholar

Gernsbacher, Morton A. 1990. Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.21236/ADA221854Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5). 219–224.10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Goss, E. & J. Salmons. 2000. The evolution of a bilingual discourse marking system: Modal particles and English markers in German-American dialects. International Journal of Bilingualism 4. 469–484.10.1177/13670069000040040501Search in Google Scholar

Graesser, Arthur C., Keith K. Millis & Rolf A. Zwaan. 1997. Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology 48. 163–189.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195376746.013.0030Search in Google Scholar

Grenoble, Lenore. 2004. Parentheticals in Russian. Journal of Pragmatics 36(11). 1953–1974.10.1016/j.pragma.2004.02.008Search in Google Scholar

Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 1998a. The function of discourse particles: A study with special reference to spoken Standard French. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 1998b. The semantic status of discourse markers. Lingua 104(3/4). 235–260.10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00003-5Search in Google Scholar

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

Haselow, Alexander. 2013. Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica 47(2). 375–424.10.1515/flin.2013.015Search in Google Scholar

Hayashi, Makoto & Kyung-Eun Yoon. 2006. A cross-linguistic exploration of demonstratives in interaction: With particular reference to the context of word-formulation trouble. Studies in Language 30. 485–540.10.1075/tsl.93.03haySearch in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 2013. On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51(6). 1205–1247.10.1515/ling-2013-0048Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd 2016. Language contact and extra-clausal constituents: The case of discourse markers. In Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds.), Outside the clause (Studies in Language Companion Series 178), 243–272. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.178.09heiSearch in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck & Tania Kuteva 2016. On insubordination and cooptation. In Nicholas Evans & Honoré Watanabe (eds.), Insubordination (Typological Studies in Language), 39–63. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.115.02heiSearch in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva & Haiping Long. 2013. An outline of Discourse Grammar. In Shannon Bischoff & Carmen Jeny (eds.), Reflections on functionalism in linguistics, 175–233. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva & Haiping Long. 2015a. On some correlations between grammar and brain lateralization. Oxford handbooks online in linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935345.013.16Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Christa König & Karsten Legère. 2015b. On institutional frames in Akie: A Discourse Grammar approach. In Osamu Hieda (ed.), Information structure and Nilotic languages (Studies in Nilotic Linguistics 10), 141–157. Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Search in Google Scholar

Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2011. Functional Discourse Grammar. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), 367–400. The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word-formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139004206Search 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

Ifantidou, Elly. 2001. Evidentials and relevance (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 86). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.86Search in Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. 1993. The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19(5). 435–452.10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004-9Search in Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. 1997. The discourse marker well in the history of English. English Language & Linguistics 1(1). 91–110.10.1017/S136067430000037XSearch in Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. & Yael Ziv (eds.). 1998. Discourse markers: Description and theory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.57Search in Google Scholar

Jung-Beeman, Mark. 2005. Bilateral brain processes for comprehending natural language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9. 512–518.10.1016/j.tics.2005.09.009Search in Google Scholar

Kac, Michael B. 1972. Clauses of saying and the interpretation of because. Language 48(3). 626–632.10.2307/412038Search in Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2007. Spoken parenthetical clauses in English. In Nicole Dehé & Yordanka Kavalova (eds.), Parentheticals (Linguistics Today 106), 25–52. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/la.106.05kalSearch in Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2008. Prosody and function of English comment clauses. Folia Linguistica 42(1). 83–134.10.1515/FLIN.2008.83Search in Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2011. Explaining diverging evidence. The case of clause-initial I think. In Doris Schönefeld (ed.), Converging evidence: Methodological and theoretical issues for linguistic research, 81–112. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.33.07kalSearch in Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine & Tania Kuteva. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4). 848–893.10.1075/sl.35.4.03kalSearch in Google Scholar

Karow, Colleen M. & Elizabeth C. Connors. 2003. Affective communication in normal and brain-damaged adults: An overview. Seminars in Speech and Language 24(2). 69–91.10.1055/s-2003-38900Search in Google Scholar

Kavalova, Yordanka. 2007. And-parenthetical clauses. In Nicole Dehé & Yordanka Kavalova (eds.), Parentheticals, 145–172. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.106.09kavSearch in Google Scholar

Kluck, Marlies. 2011. Sentence amalgamation. Groningen: LOT, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Levelt, Willem. J. M. 1983. Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition 14. 41–104.10.1016/0010-0277(83)90026-4Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, Diana M. 2011. A discourse-constructional approach to the emergence of discourse markers in English. Linguistics 49(2). 415–443.10.1515/ling.2011.013Search in Google Scholar

Lipski, John. 2005. Code-switching or borrowing? No sé so no puedo decir, you know. In Lotfi Sayahi & Maurice Westermoreland (eds.), Selected proceedings of the second workshop on Spanish sociolinguistics, 1–15. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Search in Google Scholar

MacWhinney, Brian. 2013. The logic of the Unified Model. In Susan Gass & Alison Mackay (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 211–227. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Maruyama, Takehiko. 2013. Analysis of parenthetical clauses in spontaneous Japanese. In Robert Eklund (ed.), Proceedings of DiSS 2013: The 6th workshop on disfluency in spontaneous speech, 45–48. Stockholm: Universitetsservice US-AB.Search in Google Scholar

Maschler, Yael. 1994. Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society 23. 325–266.10.1017/S0047404500018017Search in Google Scholar

Maschler, Yael. 2000. What can bilingual conversation tell us about discourse markers? International Journal of Bilingualism 4(4). 437–445.10.1177/13670069000040040101Search in Google Scholar

Matras, Yaron. 1998. Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics 36. 281–331.10.1515/ling.1998.36.2.281Search in Google Scholar

Mitchell, Rachel L. C. & Tim J. Crow. 2005. Right hemisphere language functions and schizophrenia: The forgotten hemisphere? Brain 128. 963–978.10.1093/brain/awh466Search in Google Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 2008. The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 84(1). 69–119.10.1353/lan.2008.0054Search in Google Scholar

Myers, Penelope S. 1999. Right hemisphere damage: Disorders of communication and cognition. London: Singular Publishing Group.Search in Google Scholar

Nespoulous, Jean-Luc. 1980. De deux comportements verbaux de base: Référentiel et modalisateur: De leur dissociation dans le discours aphasique. Cahiers de Psychologie 23. 195–210.Search in Google Scholar

Nespoulous, Jean-Luc, Chris Code, Jacques Virbel & André Roch Lecours. 1998. Hypotheses on the dissociation between “referential” and “modalizing” verbal behaviour in aphasia. Applied Psycholinguistics 19. 311–331.10.1017/S0142716400010080Search in Google Scholar

Nosek, Jirí. 1973. Parenthesis in modern colloquial English. Prague Studies in English 15. 99–116.Search in Google Scholar

Olshtain, Elite & Shoshana Blum-Kulka. 1989. Happy Hebrish: mixing and switching in American Israeli family interaction. In Susan Gass et al. (eds.), Variation in Second Language Acquisition, 59–83. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar

Ortner, Hanspeter. 1983. Syntaktisch hervorgehobene Konnektoren im Deutschen. Deutsche Sprache 11. 97–121.Search in Google Scholar

Prat, Chantel S., Debra L. Long & Kathleen Baynes. 2007. The representation of discourse in the two hemispheres: An individual differences investigation. Brain and Language 100(3). 283–294.10.1016/j.bandl.2006.11.002Search in Google Scholar

Robertson, D. A., M. A. Gernsbacher, S. J. Guidotti, R. R. W. Robertson, W. Irwin, B. J. Mock & M. E. Campana. 2000. Functional neuroanatomy of the cognitive process of mapping during discourse comprehension. Psychological Sciences 11(3). 255–260.10.1111/1467-9280.00251Search in Google Scholar

Rooij, Vincent A. de. 2000. French discourse markers in Shaba Swahili conversations. International Journal of Bilingualism 4(4). 447–466.10.1177/13670069000040040401Search in Google Scholar

Rota, Giuseppina. 2009. Direct brain feedback and language learning from the gifted. In Gzegorz Dogil & Maria Reiterer (eds.), Language talent and brain Activity, 337–350. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110215496.337Search in Google Scholar

Rouchota, Villy. 1998. Procedural meaning and parenthetical discourse markers. In Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, 97–126. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.57.07rouSearch in Google Scholar

Sakai, Kuniyoshi L., Yoshinori Tatsuno, Kei Suzuki, Harumi Kimura & Yasuhiro Ichida. 2005. Sign and speech: A modal commonality in left hemisphere dominance for comprehension of sentences. Brain 128(6). 1407–1417.10.1093/brain/awh465Search in Google Scholar

Sankoff, David & Shana Poplack. 1981. A formal grammar for code-switching. Papers in Linguistics 14(1–4). 3–45.10.1080/08351818109370523Search in Google Scholar

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611841Search in Google Scholar

Schneider, Stefan. 2007. Reduced parenthetical Clauses as mitigators: A corpus study of spoken French, Italian and Spanish. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.27Search in Google Scholar

Schourup, Lawrence Clifford. 1999. Discourse markers. Lingua 107. 227–265.10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1Search in Google Scholar

Shamay-Tsoory, Simone G., Rachel Tomer, Bill D. Berger & Judith Aharon-Peretz. 2003. Characterization of empathy deficits following prefrontal brain damage: The role of the right ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 15(3). 324–337.10.1162/089892903321593063Search in Google Scholar

Sherratt, Sue. 2007. Right brain damage and the verbal expression of emotion: A preliminary investigation. Aphasiology 21(3–4). 320–333.10.1080/02687030600911401Search in Google Scholar

Sherratt, Sue & Karen Bryan 2012. Discourse production after right brain damage: Gaining a comprehensive picture using a multi-level processing model. Journal of Neurolinguistics 25. 213–239.10.1016/j.jneuroling.2012.01.001Search in Google Scholar

Shriberg, E. E. 1994. Preliminaries to a theory of speech disfluencies. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Specker, Elizabeth. 2008. The use of bilingual discourse markers: Identity in mediated learning. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching 15. 97–120.Search in Google Scholar

Stolz, Thomas. 2007. Allora: On the recurrence of function-word borrowing in contact situations with Italian as donor language. In Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein & Lukas Pietsch (eds.), Connectivity in grammar and discourse, 75–99. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hsm.5.06stoSearch in Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah (ed.). 1993. Framing in discourse. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Thim-Mabrey, Christiane. 1988. Satzadverbialia und andere Ausdrücke im Vorvorfeld. Deutsche Sprache 16. 25–67.Search in Google Scholar

Tompkins, Connie A., Wiltrud Fassbinder, Margaret T. Lehman-Blake & Anette Baumgaertner. 2002. The nature and implications of right hemisphere language disorders: Issues in search of answers. In Argye E. Hillis (ed.), The handbook of adult language disorders. Integrating cognitive neuropsychology, neurology, and rehabilitation, 429–448. New York & London: Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar

Torres, Lourdes. 2002. Bilingual discourse markers in Puerto Rican Spanish. Language in Society 31. 61–83.10.1017/S0047404502001033Search in Google Scholar

Torres, Lourdes. 2006. Bilingual discourse markers in indigenous languages. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9. 615–624.10.2167/beb383.0Search in Google Scholar

Tottie, Gunnel. 2011. Uh and um as sociolinguistic markers in British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16. 173–196.10.1075/ijcl.16.2.02totSearch in Google Scholar

Tottie, Gunnel. 2014. On the use of uh and um in American English. Functions of Language 21. 6–29.10.1075/fol.21.1.02totSearch in Google Scholar

Tottie, Gunnel. 2015. Uh and um in British and American English: Are they words? Evidence from co-occurrence with pauses. In Rena Torres Cacoullos, Nathalie Dion & André Lapierre (eds.), Linguistic variation: Confronting fact and theory, 38–55. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1995. The role of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester, England, 13–18 August.Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Graeme Trousdale. 2014. Contentful constructionalization. Journal of Historical Linguistics 4(2). 254–282.10.1075/jhl.4.2.04traSearch in Google Scholar

Van Bogaert, Julie. 2009. The grammar of complement-taking mental predicate constructions in present-day spoken British English. Ghent: University of Ghent dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Van Lancker, Diana. 1997. Rags to riches: Our increasing appreciation of cognitive and communicative abilities of the human right cerebral hemisphere. Brain and Language 57. 1–11.10.1006/brln.1997.1850Search in Google Scholar

Van Linden, An & Freek Van de Velde. 2014. (Semi-)autonomous subordination in Dutch: Structures semantic-pragmatic values. Journal of Pragmatics 60. 226–250.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.022Search in Google Scholar

Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie Simon & Dominique Willems. 2011. Crosslinguistic data as evidence in the grammaticalization debate: The case of discourse markers. Linguistics 49(2). 333–364.10.1515/ling.2011.010Search in Google Scholar

Wager, Tor D., K. Luan Phan, Israel Liberzon & Stephan F. Taylor. 2003. Valence, gender, and lateralization of functional brain anatomy in emotion: A meta-analysis of findings from neuroimaging. NeuroImage 19. 513–531.10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00078-8Search in Google Scholar

Wichmann, Anne. 2001. Spoken parentheticals. In Karin Aijmer (ed.), A wealth of English: Studies in honour of Goran Kjellmer, 171–193. Gothenburg: Gothenburg University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, Deidre & Dan Sperber. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90(1–2). 1–25.10.1017/CBO9781139028370.010Search in Google Scholar

Winford, Donald. 2003. Code Switching: Linguistic aspects. In Donald Winford (ed.), An introduction to contact linguistics, 126–167. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Woolford, Ellen. 1983. Bilingual code-switching and syntactic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 520–536.Search in Google Scholar

Zanuttini, Raffaella & Paul Portner. 2003. Exclamative clauses: At the syntax-semantics interface. Language 79(1). 39–81.10.1353/lan.2003.0105Search in Google Scholar