Abbott, B. (1993). A pragmatic account of the definiteness effect in existencial sentences. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(1), 39–55.Google Scholar

Abbott, B. (1997). Definiteness and existentials. Language, 73(1), 103–108.Google Scholar

Adolphs, S. (2008). Corpus and context: Investigating pragmatic functions in spoken discourse (Vol. 30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar

Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding pragmatic markers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Aijmer, K., & Rühlemann, C. (2015). Corpus pragmatics: A handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Akimoto, M. (2000). The grammaticalization of the verb ‘pray’. In Fischer, O., Rosenbach, A. & Stein, D. (Eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English (pp. 67–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Aksu-Koç, A. (1988). The acquisition of aspect and modality: The case of past reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Aksu-Koç, A. (2006). The acquisition of aspect and modality: The case of past reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ames, C. S., & Jarrold, C. (2007). The problem with using eye-gaze to infer desire: A deficit of cue inference in children with autism spectrum disorder? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(9), 1761–1775.Google Scholar

Anderson, D. K., Lord, C., Risi, S., DiLavore, P. S., Shulman, C., Thurm, A., … & Pickles, A. (2007). Patterns of growth in verbal abilities among children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 75(4), 594.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. (1971). The grammar of case: Towards a localistic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Apperly, I. A. (2008). Beyond simulation–theory and theory–theory: Why social cognitive neuroscience should use its own concepts to study ‘Theory of Mind’. Cognition, 107(1), 266–283.Google Scholar

Apperly, I. A. (2010). Mindreaders: The cognitive basis of ‘theory of mind’. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Ariel, M. (1988). Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24(1), 65–87.Google Scholar

Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M. & Zeschel, A. (2010). Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, 5(1), 1–27.Google Scholar

Arslan, S., Aksu-Koç, A., Maviş, İ. & Bastiaanse, R. (2014). Finite verb inflections for evidential categories and source identification in Turkish agrammatic Broca’s aphasia. Journal of Pragmatics, 70, 165–181.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. H. (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J. & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.Google Scholar

Ball, J. (1978). A pragmatic analysis of autistic children’s language with respect to aphasic and normal language development. Unpublished undergraduate dissertation, Melbourne University, Australia.Google Scholar

Bangerter, A., & Clark, H. H. (2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science, 27(2), 195–225.Google Scholar

Bara, B. G. (2010). Cognitive pragmatics: The mental processes of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (Eds.). (2000). Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

Baron‐Cohen, S. (1989). Perceptual role taking and protodeclarative pointing in autism. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7(2), 113–127.Google Scholar

Baron-Cohen, S. (1991). Precursors to a theory of mind: Understanding attention in others. In Whiten, A. (Ed.), Natural theories of mind: Evolution, development and simulation of everyday mindreading. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Baron-Cohen, S. (1997). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Baron-Cohen, S. (2000). Theory of mind and autism: A fifteen year review. In Baron-Cohen, S., Tager-Flusberg, H. & Cohen, D. J. (Eds.), Understanding other minds – Perspectives from developmental cognitive neuroscience (2nd ed., pp. 3–20). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M. & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a ‘theory of mind’? Cognition, 21(1), 37–46.Google Scholar

Baron‐Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M. & Frith, U. (1986). Mechanical, behavioural and intentional understanding of picture stories in autistic children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4(2), 113–125.Google Scholar

Barresi, J., & Moore, C. (2008). The neuroscience of social understanding. In Zlatev, J., Racine, T., Sinha, C. & Itkonen, E. (Eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Barrett, M. (1999). An introduction to the nature of language and to the central themes and issues in the study of language development. In Barrett, M. (Ed.), The development of language (pp. 1–24). East Sussex: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Barrouillet, P., Grosset, N. & Lecas, J. F. (2000). Conditional reasoning by mental models: Chronometric and developmental evidence. Cognition, 75(3), 237–266.Google Scholar

Bartsch, K., & Wellman, H. M. (1995). Children talk about the mind. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bates, E. (1976) Language and context. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Bates, E., Camaioni, L. & Volterra, V. (1975). The acquisition of performatives prior to speech. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 21(3), 205–226.Google Scholar

Bates, E., Camaioni, L. & Volterra, V. (1998[1975]). The acquisition of performatives prior to speech. In Kasher, Asa (Ed.), Pragmatics: Critical concepts (Vol. 6, pp. 274–295). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bazzanella, C. (2006). Discourse markers in Italian: Towards a compositional meaning. In Fisher, K. (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 449–464). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Becchio, C., & Bertone, C. (2004). Wittgenstein running: Neural mechanisms of collective intentionality and we-mode. Consciousness and Cognition, 13(1), 123–133.Google Scholar

Benveniste, E. (1971 [1958]). Subjectivity in language (Meek, M. E., Trans.). In Problems in general linguistics (pp. 223–230). Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press. (Reprinted from 1971).Google Scholar

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Biber, D., Reppen, R. & Conrad, S. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: Perspectives from corpus linguistics and multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of Child Language, 29(2), 449–488.Google Scholar

Bleuler, E. (1950[1916]). Dementia praecox or the group of schizophrenias. New York: International Universities.Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. (1977). Meaning and form. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Bowler, D. E., & Benton, T. G. (2005). Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: Relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biological Reviews, 80(2), 205–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bradford, E. E. F., Jentzsch, I. & Gomez, J.-C. (2015). From self to social cognition: Theory of mind mechanisms and their relation to executive functioning. Cognition, 138, 21–34.Google Scholar

Breban, Tine. (2010). English adjectives of comparison: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. Vol. 63. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Brinton, L. J. (2001). Historical discourse analysis. In Schiffrin, Deborah, Tannen, Deborah & Hamilton, Heidi E. (Eds), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 138–150). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Brinton, L. J. (2017). The evolution of pragmatic markers in English: Pathways of change: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, L., & Prieto, P. (2017). (Im)politeness: Prosody and gesture. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. & Kádár, D. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness (pp. 323–355). New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Brugman, C. M., & Macaulay, M. (2015). Characterizing evidentiality. Linguistic Typology, 19(2), 201–237.Google Scholar

Bruner, J. (1981). The social context of language acquisition. Language and Communication, 1, 155–178.Google Scholar

Burnage, G., & Dunlop, D. (1992). Encoding the British National Corpus. In Aarts, J. M., de Haan, P. & Oostdijk, N. (Eds.), English language corpora: Design, analysis, exploitation (pp. 79–95). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Bushneil, I. W. R., Sai, F. & Mullin, J. T. (1989). Neonatal recognition of the mother’s face. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7(1), 3–15.Google Scholar

Butterfill, S. A., & Apperly, I. A. (2013). How to construct a minimal theory of mind. Mind & Language, 28(5), 606–637.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form (Vol. 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Byrne, R. M. J. (2005). The rational imagination: How people create counterfactual alternatives to reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Camaioni, L. (1997). The emergence of intentional communication in ontogeny, phylogeny, and pathology. European Psychologist, 2(3), 216–225.Google Scholar

Camaioni, L. (1999). Manuale di psicologia dello sviluppo. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar

Cameron-Faulkner, T. (2014). The development of speech acts. In Matthews, D. (Ed.), Pragmatic development in first language acquisition (pp. 37–52). Amsterdam /Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Cao, G. S. (1995). Jindai hanyu zhuci [The auxiliary particles of Modern Chinese]. Beijing: Yuwen chubanshe [Language & Culture Press].Google Scholar

Carey, K. (1994). Pragmatics, subjectivity and the grammaticalization of the English perfect. PhD. University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar

Carey, K. (1995). Subjectification and the development of the English perfect. In Steinand, D. & Wright, S. (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives (pp. 83–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carlson, G. N. (1978). Reference to kinds in English. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar

Ceng, L. Y. (2005). ‘Wo kan’ yu ‘ni kan’ de Zhuguanhua [The subjectification of ‘wo kan’ and ‘ni kan’]. Hanyu Xuexi [Chinese Studies], 2.Google Scholar

Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constrains on information flow. In Tomlin, R. (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 21–51). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Chao, Y. R. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Chappell, H. (2001). A typology of evidential markers in Sinitic languages. In Chappell, H. (Ed.), Chinese grammar: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives (pp. 56–85). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Charman, T., Swettenham, J., Baron-Cohen, S., Cox, A., Baird, G. & Drew, A. (1997). Infants with autism: An investigation of empathy, pretend play, joint attention, and imitation. Developmental Psychology, 33(5), 781.Google Scholar

Chen, L. (2006). Qianxi hanyu biaoji ‘ni kankan’ de xingcheng yuanyin [A general analysis of the formation of the discourse marker ‘ni kankan’]. Yuwen xuekan [The Journal of Language], (10), 46–47.Google Scholar

Chen, Q. R. (2008). Hanyu timao yanjiu de leixingxue shiye [A study on the aspectual system of Mandarin from a typological perspective]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar

Choi, S. (1995). The development of epistemic sentence-ending modal forms and functions in Korean children. In Bybee, J. & Fleischman, S. (Eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse (pp. 165–204). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

Chor, W. (2013). From ‘direction’ to ‘positive evaluation’: On the grammaticalization, subjectification and intersubjectification of faan1 ‘return’ in Cantonese. Language and Linguistics, 14(1), 91.Google Scholar

Ciaramidaro, A., Adenzato, M., Enrici, I., Erk, S., Pia, L., Bara, B. & Walter, H. (2007). The intentional network: How the brain reads varieties of intentions. Neuropsychologia, 45, 3105–3113.Google Scholar

Citko, B. (2003). On the syntax and semantics of English and Polish concessive conditionals. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 37–54.Google Scholar

Clark, E. V. (2007). Conventionality and contrast in language and language acquisition. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 115, 11–23.Google Scholar

Clark, E. V. (2014). Two pragmatic principles in language use and acquisition. In Matthews, En D. (Ed.), Pragmatic development in first language acquisition (pp. 105–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.10.07claGoogle Scholar

Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. A. (1991). Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: APA Books.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H., & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(1), 56–72.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H., & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshi, A. K., Webber, B. & Sag, I. (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Cohen, A. S., Sasaki, J. Y. & German, T. C. (2015). Specialized mechanisms for theory of mind: Are mental representations special because they are mental or because they are representations? Cognition, 136, 49–63.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cornillie, B. (2007). Evidentiality and epistemic modality in Spanish (semi-) auxiliaries: A cognitive-functional approach (Vol. 5). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Cornillie, B. (2009). Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language, 16(1), 44–62.Google Scholar

Cornillie, B., & Delbeque, N. (Eds.). (2006). Topics in subjectification and modalization. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 20.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Thompson, S. (2000). Concessive patterns in conversation. In Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Kortmann, B. (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast (pp. 381–410). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Croft, W. (2007). The origins of grammar in the verbalization of experience. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3), 339–382.Google Scholar

Croft, W. (2010). The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics, 48(1), 1–48.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J., & Gillings, M. (2019). Pragmatics: Data trends. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 4–14.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J., & Kytö, M. (2010). Early modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dahl, О. s. (1985). Tense and aspect systems. Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar

Dahl, О. s., & Hedin, E. (2000). Current relevance and event reference. In Dahl, О. (Ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (pp. 385–402). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Dai, Y. J. (1997). Xiandai hanyu shiti xitong yanjiu [A study of aspect in Modern Chinese]. Hangzou: Zhejiang Educational Press.Google Scholar

Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2012). Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Davidse, K. (1999). The semantics of cardinal versus enumerative existential constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(3), 203–250.Google Scholar

Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.). (2010). Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Topics in English Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. (2001). Subjective, intersubjective, objective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Davies, M. (2009). The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2), 159–190.Google Scholar

Davies, M. (2012). The 400 million word Corpus of Historical American English (1810–2009). In Hegedűs, I. & Fodor, A. (Eds.), English historical linguistics 2010 (pp. 219–249). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

De Clerck, B. (2006). The imperative in present-day English: A corpus-based, pragmatic analysis. Belgium: Universiteit Gent.Google Scholar

DeLancey, S. (1997). Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 1, 33–52.Google Scholar

DeLancey, S. (2001). The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 369–382.Google Scholar

Dennis, M., Lazenby, A. L. & Lockyer, L. (2001). Inferential language in high-function children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(1), 47–54.Google Scholar

de Rosnay, M., Fink, E., Begeer, S., Slaughter, V. & Peterson, C. (2014). Talking theory of mind talk: Young school-aged children's everyday conversation and understanding of mind and emotion. Journal of Child Language, 41(5), 1179–1193.Google Scholar

de Rosnay, M., & Hughes, C. (2006). Conversation and theory of mind: Do children talk their way to socio‐cognitive understanding? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24(1), 7–37.Google Scholar

de Ruiter, L. E., & Theakston, A. L. (2017). First language acquisition. In The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 59–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Devos, M., & van der Wal, J. (2012). Grammaticalization and (inter) subjectification in African languages. Africana Linguistica, 18(1), 3.Google Scholar

Diessel, H. (2006). Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 463–489.Google Scholar

Diessel, H. (2011). Grammaticalization and language acquisition. In Narrog, H. & Heine, B. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 130–141) (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 97–141.Google Scholar

DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 263–287.Google Scholar

Divjak, D., & Arppe, A. (2013). Extracting prototypes from exemplars. What can corpus data tell us about concept representation? Cognitive Linguistics, 24(2), 221–274.Google Scholar

Dobbinson, S., Perkins, M. R. & Boucher, J. (1998). Structural patterns in conversations with a woman who has autism. Journal of Communication Disorders, 31(2), 113–134.Google Scholar

Dostie, G. (2004). Pragmaticalization et Marqueurs Discursifs. Analyse Sémantique et Traitement Lexicographique. Brussels: De Boeck.Google Scholar

Downing, A. (2001). ‘Surely you knew!’: Surely as a marker of evidentiality and stance. Functions of Language, 8(2), 251–282.Google Scholar

Du Bois, J. W., Hobson, R. P. & Hobson, J. A. (2014). Dialogic resonance and intersubjective engagement in autism. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 411–441.Google Scholar

Eales, M. J. (1993). Pragmatic impairments in adults with childhood diagnoses of autism or developmental receptive language disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 23(4), 593–617.Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics – Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 558–589.Google Scholar

Engel, A. K., Friston, K. J. & Kragic, D. (2014). Where’s the action? In Engel, A. K., Friston, K. J. & Kragic, D. (Eds.), The pragmatic turn: Toward action-oriented views in cognitive science. Cambridge/London: MIT.Google Scholar

Enrici, I., Adenzato, M., Cappa, S., Bara, B. & Tettamanti, M. (2011). Intention processing in communication: A common brain network for language and gestures. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 2415–2431.Google Scholar

Evans, V. (2007). Glossary of cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Faller, M. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD dissertation. Stanford University, CA.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. (1987). The semantics of clause and verb for relational processes in English. In Halliday, M. & Fawcett, R. (Eds.), New developments in systemic linguistics. Vol. 1: Theory and Description (pp. 130–183). London: Pinter.Google Scholar

Felder, E., Müller, M. & Vogel, F. (2012). (Hgg.): Korpuspragmatik. Themati-sche Korpora als Basis diskurslinguistischer Analysen von Texten und Gesprächen. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Ferrari, L., & Sweetser, E. (2012). Subjectivity and upwards projection in mental space structure. In Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E. (Eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective (pp. 47–68).. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.Google Scholar

Fine, J., Bartolucci, G. & Sc Szatmari, P. (1994). Cohesive discourse in pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 315–329.Google Scholar

Fitneva, S. A. (2008). The role of evidentiality in Bulgarian children’s reliability judgments. Journal of child Language, 35(4), 845–868.Google Scholar

Fitzmaurice, Susan. (2004). Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the historical construction of interlocutor stance: From stance markers to discourse markers. Discourse Studies, 6(4), 427–448.Google Scholar

Foolen, A. (2019). Quo vadis pragmatics? From adaptation to participatory sense-making. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 39–46.Google Scholar

Fraser, B. (2009). Topic orientation markers. Journal of pragmatics, 41(5), 892–898.Google Scholar

Friedman, V. (1994). Assertive verb forms in Lak. In Aronson, Howard (Ed.), Non-Slavic languages of the USSR: Papers from the fourth conference (pp. 114–119). Columbus: Slavica.Google Scholar

Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127.Google Scholar

Friston, K., Samothrakis, S. & Montague, R. (2012). Active inference and agency: Optimal control without cost functions. Biological Cybernetics, 106(8–9), 523–541.Google Scholar

Frith, C. D. (2004). Schizophrenia and theory of mind. Psychological Medicine, 34(3), 385–389.Google Scholar

Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., McEnery, T. & Boyd, E. (2017). Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: The effect of task and speaker style. Applied Linguistics, 38(5), 613–637.Google Scholar

Garton, A. F. (1983). An approach to the study of determiners in early language development. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 12(5), 513–525.Google Scholar

Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

German, T. P., & Hehman, J. A. (2006). Representational and executive selection resources in ‘theory of mind’: Evidence from compromised belief-desire reasoning in old age. Cognition, 101(1), 129–152.Google Scholar

Gernsbacher, M. A., Geye, H. M. & Ellis Weismer, S. (2005). The role of language and communication impairments within autism. Language Disorders and Developmental Theory, 73–93.Google Scholar

Ghesquière, L. (2014). The directionality of (inter)subjectification in the English noun phrase: Pathways of change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Ghesquière, L., Brems, L. & de Velde, F. V. (2012). Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification: Typology and operationalization. English Text Construction, 5(1), 128–152.Google Scholar

Ghesquière, L., & de Velde, F. V. (2011). A corpus-based account of the development of English such and Dutch zulk: Identification, intensification and (inter) subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(4), 765–797.Google Scholar

Ghezzi, C., & Molinelli, P. (2014). Italian guarda, prego and dai: Pragmatic markers and the left and right periphery. In Beeching, K. & Detges, U. (Eds.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change (pp. 115–150). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Giora, R. (2012). The psychology of utterance processing: Context vs salience. In Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K. M. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 151–167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Givón, T. (1993). English grammar: A function-based introduction (Vol. 2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar

Givón, T. (2009). The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1967). On face-work. In Interaction Ritual (pp. 5–45).Google Scholar

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

Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goldman, A. I. (2006). Simulating minds: The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mindreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goldman, A. I. (2012). Theory of mind. In Margolis, E., Samuels, R. & Stich, S. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Cognitive Science (pp. 402–424). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gómez, J. C., Sarria, E. & Tamarit, J. (1993). The comparative study of early communication and theories of mind: Ontogeny, phylogeny and pathology. In Baron-Cohen, S, Tager-Flusberg, H. & Cohen, D. (Eds.), Understanding other minds: Perspectives from autism (pp. 397–426). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gopnik, A., & Graf, P. (1988). Knowing how you know: Young children’s ability to identify and remember the sources of their beliefs. Child Development, 59(5), 1366–1371.Google Scholar

Grant, C. M., Riggs, K. J. & Boucher, J. (2004). Counterfactual and mental state reasoning in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 177–188.Google Scholar

Gries, S. T. (2003). Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London: Continuum Press.Google Scholar

Gries, S. T. (2010). Behavioral profiles: A fine-grained and quantitative approach in corpus-based lexical semantics. The Mental Lexicon, 5(3), 323–346.Google Scholar

Gries, S. T., & Otani, N. (2010). Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based perspective on synonymy and antonymy. ICAME Journal, 34, 121–150.Google Scholar

Gries, S. T. & Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.). (2006). Corpora in cogmtive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Grondelaers, S. (2000). De distributie van niet-anaforisch er buiten de eerste zinsplaats. Sociolectische, functionele en psycholinguistische aspecten van er’s status als presentatief signaal. PhD thesis. University of Leuven.Google Scholar

Grondelaers, S., Geeraerts, D. & Speelman, D. (2007). A case for a cogntive corpus linguistics. In Gonzalez-Marquez, M., Mittelberg, I., Coulson, S. & Spivey, M. J. (Eds.), Methods in cogntive linguistics (pp. 149–69). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Grondelaers, S., Speelman, D. & Geeraerts, D. (2002). Regressing on er. statistical analysis of texts and language variation. In Morin, A. & Sébillot, P. (Eds.), Sixth International Conference on the Statistical Analysis of Textual Data (pp. 335–346). Rennes: Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique.Google Scholar

Guardamagna, C. (2017). Reportative evidentiality, attribution and epistemic modality: A corpus-based diachronic study of Latin secundum NP (‘according to NP’). Language Sciences, 59, 159–179.Google Scholar

Guentchéva, Zlatka. (1996). Le médiatif en bulgare. In Guentchéva, Z (Ed.), L’énonciation médiatisée (pp. 47–70). Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar

Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 274–307.Google Scholar

Hale, C. M., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (2005). Social communication in children with autism: The relationship between theory of mind and discourse development. Autism, 9(2), 157–178.Google Scholar

Hamann, K., Warneken, F., Greenberg, J. R. & Tomasello, M. (2011). Collaboration encourages equal sharing in children but not in chimpanzees. Nature, 476(7360), 328–331.Google Scholar

Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language and Communicative Processes. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Hansen, M.-B. M. (2008). Particles at the semantics/pragmatics interface: Synchronic and diachronic issues: A study with special reference to the French phrasal adverbs. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Happé, F. G. (1993). Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: A test of relevance theory. Cognition, 48(2), 101–119.Google Scholar

Happé, F. G. (1994). An advanced test of theory of mind: Understanding of story characters’ thoughts and feelings by able autistic, mentally handicapped, and normal children and adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24(2), 129–154.Google Scholar

Happé, F. G. (1995). The role of age and verbal ability in the theory of mind task performance of subjects with autism. Child Development, 66(3), 843–855.Google Scholar

Haselow, A. (2012). Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language & Communication, 32(3), 182–204.Google Scholar

Haselow, A. & Hancil, S. (2018). Rethinking language change from a dialogic perspective. Language Sciences, 68, 1–5.Google Scholar

Henrich, N., & Henrich, J. P. (2007). Why humans cooperate: A cultural and evolutionary explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hepper, P. G., Scott, D. & Shahidullah, S. (1993). Newborn and fetal response to maternal voice. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 11(3), 147–153.Google Scholar

Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hilpert, M. (2015). From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 113–147.Google Scholar

Hobson, R. P. (1993). The emotional origins of social understanding. Philosophical Psychology, 6(3), 227–249.Google Scholar

Hobson, R. P., & Lee, A. (1998). Hello and goodbye: A study of social engagement in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 28(2), 117–127.Google Scholar

Hobson, R. P., & Meyer, J. A. (2005). Foundations for self and other: A study in autism. Developmental Science, 8(6), 481–491.Google Scholar

Hommel, B. (2013). Ideomotor action control: On the perceptual grounding of voluntary actions and agents. In Prinz, W., Beisert, M. & Herwig, A. (Eds.), Action science: Foundations of an emerging discipline (pp. 113–136). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (2018). Words in edgewise. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4, 1–19.Google Scholar

Hothorn, T., Hornik, K. & Zeileis, A. (2006). Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15(3), 651–674.Google Scholar

Howard, A. A., Mayeux, L. & Naigles, L. R. (2008). Conversational correlates of children’s acquisition of mental verbs and a theory of mind. First Language, 28(4), 375–402.Google Scholar

Hu, M. Y. (1981). Beijinghua de yuqici he tanci [Sentence final particles and interjections in Pekinese]. Zhonguo Yuwen [Chinese Language], 5(6), 416–423.Google Scholar

Hughes, C., & Leekam, S. (2004). What are the links between theory of mind and social relations? Review, reflections and new directions for studies of typical and atypical development. Social Development, 13(4), 590–619.Google Scholar

Husserl, E. ([1936] 1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Iljic, R. (1990). The verbal suffix -guo in Mandarin Chinese and the notion of recurrence. Lingua, 81, 301–326.Google Scholar

Jäeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446.Google Scholar

Janda, L. A. (Ed.) (2013). Cognitive linguistics: The quantitative turn. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Jansegers, M. & Gries, S. T. (2017). Towards a dynamic behavioral profile: A diachronic study of polysemous sentir in Spanish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Epub ahead of print 6 October 2017. DOI: 10.1515/cllt-2016-0080.Google Scholar

Jaswal, V., & Akhtar, N. (2019). Being versus appearing socially uninterested: Challenging assumptions about social motivation in autism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42, E82. doi:10.1017/S0140525X18001826Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, K., & Allan, K. (2012). Introduction. In Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics, pp. 1–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.001Google Scholar

Jenkins, Lyle. (1975). The English existential. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Johanson, L. (2003). Evidentiality in Turkic. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. (Eds.), Studies in evidentiality (pp. 273–291). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Jucker, A. H., & Taavitsainen, I. (2014). Diachronic corpus pragmatics: Intersections and interactions. In Taavitsainen, I., Jucker, A. H. & Tuominen, J. (Eds.), Diachronic corpus oragmatics (pp. 3–26). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kahn, C. H. (1966.). The Greek verb ‘to be’ and the concept of being. Foundations of Language, 2, 245–265.Google Scholar

Kalandadze, T., Norbury, C., Nærland, T. & Næss, K. A. B. (2018). Figurative language comprehension in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analytic review. Autism, 22(2), 99–117.Google Scholar

Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous Child, 2(3), 217–250.Google Scholar

Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). Micro-and macrodevelopmental changes in language acquisition and other representational systems. Cognitive Science, 3(2), 91–117.Google Scholar

Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2),193–218.Google Scholar

Keller, E., & Warner, S. T. (1979). Gambits: Conversational tools. Vol. 1: Openers. Vol. 2: Links. Hull: Public Service Commission of Canada, Language Training Branch, English Program Development Unit.Google Scholar

Kendrick, K. H., & Drew, P. (2014.) The putative preference for offers over requests. In Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Kessen, W. (1975). Childhood in China. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Ketrez, F. N. (2014). Harmonic cues for speech segmentation: A cross-linguistic corpus study on child-directed speech. Journal of Child Language, 41(2), 439–461.Google Scholar

Keupp, S., Behne, T., & Rakoczy, H. (2013). Why do children overimitate? Normativity is crucial. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 392–406.Google Scholar

Kleider, H. M., Pezdek, K., Goldinger, S. D. & Kirk, A. (2008). Schema‐driven source misattribution errors: Remembering the expected from a witnessed event. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 22(1), 1–20.Google Scholar

Koschmann, T., & LeBaron, C. D. (2003). Reconsidering common ground. ECSCW 2003, Helsinki.Google Scholar

Kovács, Á. M., Téglás, E. & Endress, A. D. (2010). The social sense: Susceptibility to others’ beliefs in human infants and adults. Science, 330(6012), 1830–1834.Google Scholar

Küntay, A. C., Nakamura, K. & Ateş-Şen, A. B. (2014). Crosslinguistic and crosscultural approaches to pragmatic development. In Pragmatic development in first language acquisition (pp. 317–342).Google Scholar

Kushnir, T., Wellman, H. M. & Gelman, S. A. (2008). The role of preschoolers’ social understanding in evaluating the informativeness of causal interventions. Cognition, 107(3), 1084–1092.Google Scholar

Kwon, I. (2012). The Korean evidential marker-te-revisited: Its semantic constraints and distancing effects in mental spaces theory. Constructions and Frames, 4(2), 152–185.Google Scholar

Laakso, A., & Smith, L. B. (2007). Pronouns and verbs in adult speech to children: A corpus analysis. Journal of Child Language, 34(4), 725–763.Google Scholar

Labov, W. (1972). Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society, 1(1), 97–120.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?. Cognitive Linguistics (includes Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography), 1(1), 39–74.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (1985). Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In Haiman, J. (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 109–150). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. I). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 5–38.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Descriptive application (Vol. II). Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow, M. and Kemmer, S. (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (2005). Dynamicity, fictivity, and scanning: The imaginative basis of logic and linguistic meaning. In Pecher, D. & Zwaan, R. A. (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language and thinking (pp. 164–197). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (2009). Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Lazard, G. (1996). Le médiatif en persan. In Guentchéva, Z. (Ed.), L’énonciation médiatisée (pp. 21–30). Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar

Lazard, G. (1999). Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other. Linguistic Typology, 3, 91–109.Google Scholar

Lazard, G. (2001). On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 359–367.Google Scholar

Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1988). Autistic children’s understanding of seeing, knowing and believing. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6(4), 315–324.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Levshina, N. (2015). How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. K. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Li, C., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Li, H., & Rao, N. (2000). Parental influences on Chinese literacy development: A comparison of preschoolers in Beijing, Hong Kong, and Singapore. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(1), 82–90.Google Scholar

Liang, L. Y., Dandan, W. U. & Hui, L. I. (2019). Chinese preschoolers’ acquisition of temporal adverbs indicating past, present, and future: A corpus-based study. Journal of Child Language, 46(4), 760–784.Google Scholar

Lieven, E., Salomo, D. & Tomasello, M. (2009). Two-year-old children's production of multiword utterances: A usage-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3), 481–507.Google Scholar

Lin, J. W. (2006). Time in a language without tense: The case of Chinese. Journal of Semantics, 23, 1–53.Google Scholar

Lin, J. W. (2007). Predicate restriction, discontinuity property and the meaning of the perfective marker Guo in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 16, 237–257.Google Scholar

Lin, X. N. (2004). Shixi Tang Song shiqi de ‘guo’ yufahua jincheng chihuan de yuanyin [An analysis of the slowdown in the grammaticalization process of guo during the Tang and Song periods]. Yuyan Kexue [Linguistic Sciences], 6, 42–52.Google Scholar

Linell, P., & Lindström, J. (2016). Partial intersubjectivity and sufficient understandings for current practical purposes: On a specialized practice in Swedish conversation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 39(2), 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Liu, J. (2009). Shitai zhuci de yanjiu yu VO guo [A study on tense particles and the VO guo construction]. In Li, F., Long, Y. Y. & Cai, Z. Z. (Eds.), Hanyu shiti de lishi yanjiu [Diachronic study on the tense and aspect system of Chinese]. Beijing: Yuwen Chubanshe [Language & Culture Press].Google Scholar

Liu, Y. H. (1986). Duihua zhong ‘shuo’ ‘xiang’ ‘kan’ de yizhong teshu yongfa [A particular usage of ‘shuo’ ‘xiang’ ‘kan’ in interaction]. Zhongguoyuwen, 3 [Chinese Language].Google Scholar

Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 1(1), 9–33.Google Scholar

López-Couso, M. J. (2010). Subjectification and intersubjectification. In Jucker, A. H. & Taavitsainen, I. (Eds.), Historical Pragmatics (pp. 127–163). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Lord, C., & Paul, R. (1997). Language and communication in autism. In Cohen, D. J. & Volkmar, F. R. (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive development disorders (2nd edn., pp. 195–225). Wiley: New York.Google Scholar

Loveland, K. A. (1993). Autism, affordances, and the self. In Neisser, U. (Ed.), The perceived self: Ecological and inter-personal sources of self-knowledge (pp. 237–253). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Loveland, K. A., & Landry, S. H. (1986). Joint attention and language in autism and developmental language delay. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 16(3), 335–349.Google Scholar

Lü, S. X. (1999). Xiandai hanyu babai ci [800 words from Modern Mandarin]. Beijing: Commercial Press.Google Scholar

Lyons, D. E.,Young, A. G., & Keil, F. C. (2007). The hidden structure of overimitation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(50), 19751–19756.Google Scholar

Lyons, J. (1975). Deixis as the source of reference. In Keenan, E. (Ed.), Formal semantics of natural language (pp. 61–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lyons, J. (1982). Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In Jarvella, R. J. & Klein, W. (Eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 101–124). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Lyons, J. (1994). Subjecthood and subjectivity. In Yaguello, M. (Ed.), Subjecthood and subjectivity: The status of the subject in linguistic theory (pp. 9–17). Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar

Lyons, J., & John, L. (1995). Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Maciejewska, E. (2019). Discourse analysis as a tool for uncovering strengths in communicative practices of autistic individuals. Discourse Studies, 21(3), 300–316.Google Scholar

Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Schloerscheidt, A. M. & Milne, A. B. (1999). Tales of the unexpected: Executive function and person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 200.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B. (2006). Emergentism – Use often and with care. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 729–740.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B., & Fromm, D. (2016). Child Language Data Exchange System Tools for Clinical Analysis. Paper presented at the Seminars in speech and languagMandler, J. M. (1992). How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 99(4), 587.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B., & Snow, C. (1985). The child language data exchange system. Journal of Child Language, 12(2), 271–295.Google Scholar

Maslen, R. J., Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. & Tomasello, M. (2004). A dense corpus study of past tense and plural overregularization in English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research.Google Scholar

Matsui, T. (2014). Children’s understanding of linguistic expressions of certainty and evidentiality. In Matthews, D. (Ed.), Pragmatic development in first language acquisition (pp. 295–316). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Matsui, T., & Fitneva, S. A. (2009). Knowing how we know: Evidentiality and cognitive development. In Fitneva, S. A. & Matsui, T (Eds.), Evidentiality: A window into language and cognitive development (New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 125, pp. 1–11). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Matsui, T., Yamamoto, T. & McCagg, P. (2006). On the role of language in children’s early understanding of others as epistemic beings. Cognitive Development, 21(2), 158–173.Google Scholar

McCafferty, S. G. (1998). Nonverbal expression and L2 private speech. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 73–96.Google Scholar

McEnery, A., & Xiao, Z. (2004). The Lancaster Corpus of Mandarin Chinese: A corpus for monolingual and contrastive language study. Religion, 17, 3–4.Google Scholar

McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2011). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McEnery, T., Love, R. & Brezina, V. (2017). Introduction: Compiling and analysing the Spoken British National Corpus 2014. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 311–318.Google Scholar

Miller, R., & Siegmund, D. (1982). Maximally selected chi square statistics. Biometrics, 1011–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Milsark, G. (1977). Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis, 3, 1–29.Google Scholar

Moll, H., & Tomasello, M. (2007). How 14-and 18-month-olds know what others have experienced. Developmental Psychology, 43(2),309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mori, J., & Hayashi, M. (2006). The achievement of intersubjectivity through embodied completions: A study of interactions between first and second language speakers. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 195–219.Google Scholar

Mundy, P., Sigman, M. & Kasari, C. (1994). Joint attention, developmental level, and symptom presentation in autism. Development and Psychopathology, 6(3), 389–401.Google Scholar

Mundy, P., Sigman, M., Ungerer, J. & Sherman, T. (1986). Defining the social deficits of autism: The contribution of non‐verbal communication measures. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 27(5), 657–669.Google Scholar

Mushin, I. (2001). Evidentiality and epistemological stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Narrog, H. (2005). On defining modality again. Language Sciences, 27(2), 165–192.Google Scholar

Narrog, H. (2009). Modality in Japanese: The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Narrog, H. (2010). (Inter)subjectification in the area of modality and mood – Concepts and cross-linguistic realities. In Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (pp. 385–429). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Narrog, H. (2012). Beyond intersubjectification: Textual usages of modality and mood in subordinate clauses as part of speech orientation. English Text Construction, 5(1), 29–52.Google Scholar

Nenadic, O., & Greenacre, M. (2007). Correspondence analysis in R, with two-and three-dimensional graphics: The ca package. Journal of Statistical Software, 20(3).Google Scholar

Newell, A. (1994). Unified theories of cognition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Norén, K. & Linell, P. (2007). Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and contexts. An empirical substantiations. Pragmatics, 17, 387–416.Google Scholar

Norrick, N. R. (2009). Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 866–891.Google Scholar

Nuyts, J. (2001a). Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 383–400.Google Scholar

Nuyts, J. (2001b). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Nuyts, J. (2012). Notions of (inter)subjectivity. English Text Construction, 5(1), 53–76.Google Scholar

Nuyts, J., & Byloo, P. (2015). Competing modals: Beyond (inter) subjectification. Diachronica, 32(1), 34–68.Google Scholar

Oakes, M. P. (1998). Statistics for corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Ochs, E., & Solomon, O. (2004). Practical logic and autism. In Edgerton, R. & Casey, Connerly (Eds.), A companion to psychological anthropology: Modernity and psychocultural change (pp. 140–167). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Ochs, E., Solomon, O. & Sterponi, L. (2005). Limitations and transformations of habitus in child-directed communication. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 547–583.Google Scholar

O’Connor, P. (1994). ‘You could feel it through the skin’: Agency and positioning in the prisoners’ stabbing stories. Text, 14, 45–75.Google Scholar

O’Neill, D. K. (1996). Two‐year‐old children’s sensitivity to a parent’s knowledge state when making requests. Child Development, 67(2), 659–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

O’Neill, D. K., & Chong, S. (2001). Preschool children’s difficulty understanding the types of information obtained through the five senses. Child Development, 72(3), 803–815.Google Scholar

O’Neill, D. K., & Gopnik, A. (1991). Young children’s ability to identify the sources of their beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 27(3), 390.Google Scholar

Onishi, K. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science, 308(5719), 255–258.Google Scholar

Onodera, N. O. (2004). Japanese discourse markers: Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Onodera, N. O. (2007). Interplay of (inter)subjectivity and social norm. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 8(2), 239–267.Google Scholar

Onodera, N. O., & Suzuki, R. (2007). Historical changes in Japanese: With special focus on subjectivity and intersubjectivity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 8(2).Google Scholar

Ozonoff, S., Pennington, B. F. & Rogers, S. J. (1991). Executive function deficits in high‐functioning autistic individuals: Relationship to theory of mind. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 32(7), 1081–1105.Google Scholar

Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Palmer, F. R. (2003). Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. Modality in Contemporary English, 1, 17.Google Scholar

Pan, H., & Lee, P. (2004). The role of pragmatics in interpreting the Chinese perfective markers guo and le. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(3), 441–466.Google Scholar

Papafragou, A. (2000). Modality: Issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface. (Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface 6.) Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Papafragou, A., Li, P., Choi, Y. & Han, C. (2007). Evidentiality in language and cognition. Cognition, 103, 253–299.Google Scholar

Pascual, E. (2006). Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 245–267.Google Scholar

Pascual, E. (2014). Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse (Vol. 47). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Penn, D. C., & Povinelli, D. J. (2007). On the lack of evidence that non-human animals possess anything remotely resembling a ‘Theory of Mind’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1480), 731–744.Google Scholar

Perner, J. (1991). Understanding the representational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Perner, J., Frith, U., Leslie, A. M. & Leekam, S. R. (1989). Exploration of the autistic child’s theory of mind: Knowledge, belief, and communication. Child Development, 689–700.Google Scholar

Perner, J., Leekam, S. R. & Wimmer, H. (1987). Three‐year‐olds’ difficulty with false belief: The case for a conceptual deficit. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(2), 125–137.Google Scholar

Perner, J., & Ruffman, T. (2005). Infants’ insight into the mind: How deep? Science, 308(5719), 214–216.Google Scholar

Perucchini, P., & Camaioni, L. (1993). When intentional communication emerges. In Developmental dissociations between declarative and imperative functions of gestures. Paper presented to Developmental Conference of the British Psychological Society, Birmingham.Google Scholar

Pillow, B. H. (1989). Early understanding of perception as a source of knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 47(1), 116–129.Google Scholar

Pillow, B. H., Hill, V., Boyce, A. & Stein, C. (2000). Understanding inference as a source of knowledge: Children’s ability to evaluate the certainty of deduction, perception, and guessing. Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 169.Google Scholar

Pisula, E. (2010). The autistic mind in the light of neuropsychological studies. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis.Google Scholar

Pleyer, M., Hartmann, S., Winters, J. & Zlatev, J. (2017). Interaction and iconicity in the evolution of language: Introduction to the special issue. Interaction Studies, 18(3), 303–313. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18.3.01pleGoogle Scholar

Plungian, V. A., & van der Auwera, J. (2006). Towards a typology of discontinuous past marking. Language Typology and Universals, 59(4), 317–349.Google Scholar

Poggi, I. (2009). The language of interjections. In Multimodal signals: Cognitive and algorithmic issues (pp. 170–186). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

Povinelli, D. J., & Giambrone, S. (1999). Inferring other minds: Failure of the argument by analogy. Philosophical Topics, 27, 167–201.Google Scholar

Pratt, C., & Bryant, P. (1990). Young children understand that looking leads to knowing (so long as they are looking into a single barrel). Child Development, 61(4), 973–982.Google Scholar

Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(04), 515–526.Google Scholar

Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 75–102). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Prince, E. F. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. Discourse description: diverse analyses of a fund raising text (pp. 295–325).Google Scholar

Prizant, B. M., & Wetherby, A. M. (1987). Communicative intent: A framework for understanding social-communicative behavior in autism. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 26(4), 472–479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pullum, G. K., & Huddleston, R. (2002). Negation. In Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (pp. 785–849). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Qiang, X. N. (2007). Tawen yu ziwen – cong putonghua ‘ma’ he ‘ne’ shuoqi [Third-person and reflexive questions. A discussion on Mandarin ‘ma’ and ‘ne’]. Yuyan Kexue, 5.Google Scholar

Qiang, X. N. (2008). Zhiqing zhuangtai yu zhichen yuqici ‘ma’ [Factual modality and the indicative mood particle ‘ma’]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue, 2.Google Scholar

Qu, C. X., &Li, P. (2004). ‘Lun xiandaihanyu jumoqingtaixuci jiqi yingyi’: yi ‘ba’ de yupian gongneng weili. Waiyu Xuekan, 6, 1–10.Google Scholar

Raymond, M., & Rousset, F. (1995). An exact test for population differentiation. Evolution, 49(6), 1280–1283.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (2012). Contextualism: Some varieties. In Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K. M. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 135–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Reich, W. (2011). The cooperative nature of communicative acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1349–1365.Google Scholar

Reich, W. (2012). In defense of the evolutionary approach to human communication: Reply to Huang and Wu. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(1), 123–125.Google Scholar

Rhee, S. (2012). Context-induced reinterpretation and (inter) subjectification: The case of grammaticalization of sentence-final particles. Language Sciences, 34(3), 284–300.Google Scholar

Rollins, P. R., & Snow, C. E. (1998). Shared attention and grammatical development in typical children and children with autism. Journal of Child Language, 25(3), 653–673.Google Scholar

Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structure. London: Wiley.Google Scholar

Rubovitz, T. (1999). Evidential-existentials: The interaction between discourse and sentence structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(8), 1025–1040.Google Scholar

Ruffman, T., Slade, L. & Crowe, E. (2002). The relation between children’s and mothers’ mental state language and theory‐of‐mind understanding. Child Development, 73(3), 734–751.Google Scholar

Rühlemann, C. (2019). Corpus linguistics for pragmatics: A guide for research. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Rychlý, P. (2008). A lexicographer-friendly association score. In Sojka, P. & Horák, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of recent advances in Slavonic natural language processing (RASLAN, pp. 6–9). Brno: Tribun EU.Google Scholar

Sanders, T., Sanders, J. & Sweetser, E. (2009). Causality, cognition and communication: A mental space analysis of subjectivity in causal connectives. In Sanders, T. & Sweetser, E. (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp. 21–60). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter .Google Scholar

Saxe, R. (2006). Uniquely human social cognition. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 16, 235–239.Google Scholar

Schaafsma, S. M., Pfaff, D. W., Spunt, R. P. & Adolphs, R. (2015). Deconstructing and reconstructing theory of mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(2), 65–72.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (2006) Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted. In Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction (pp. 70–96). Oxford/New York: Berg.Google Scholar

Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Reddy, V., Costall, A., Bente, G., Schlicht, T. & Vogeley, K. (2013). Toward a second-person neuroscience 1. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 393–414.Google Scholar

Schmid, H.-J. (2012). Generalizing the apparently ungeneralizable. In Schmid, H.-J. (Ed.), Basic ingredients of a cognitive-pragmatic approach to the construal of meaning-in-context (Cognitive Pragmatics, pp. 3–22). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Schneider, D., Slaughter, V. P. & Dux, P. E. (2015). What do we know about implicit false-belief tracking? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(1), 1–12.Google Scholar

Schneider, W. X. (1999). Visual-spatial working memory, attention, and scene representation: A neuro-cognitive theory. Psychological Research, 62(2–3), 220–236.Google Scholar

Schwenter, S. A., & Waltereit, R. (2010). Presupposition accommodation and language change. In Davidse, K. & Vandelanotte, L. (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 75–102). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (2010). Making the social world: The structure of human civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Shao, J. M. (1996). Xiandai Hanyu yiwenju yanjiu [A study on interrogatives in Modern Mandarin]. Shanghai: Hudong Shifan Daxue Chubanshe [Hudong Normal University Press].Google Scholar

Shen, L. (2003). Hanyu de zhichen yutai fanchou, jian zhongguo yuwen zazhi shebian ‘yufa yanjiu he tansuo’ (12) [The indicative mood of Mandarin: A look at the linguistic journal ‘Research and Explorations in Grammar’ (12)]. Beijing: Commercial Press.Google Scholar

Shie, C-c. (1991). A discourse-functional analysis of Mandarin sentence-final particles. MA thesis. National Chengchi University.Google Scholar

Simmons, J. Q., & Baltax, C. (1975). Language patterns of adolescent autistics. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 5, 333–351. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf01540680Google Scholar

Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sirota, K. G. (2004). Positive politeness as discourse process: Politeness practices of high-functioning children with autism and Asperger syndrome. Discourse Studies, 6(2), 229–251.Google Scholar

Slobin, D. & Aksu, A. (1982). Tense, aspect, modality, and more in Turkish evidentials. In Hopper, P. (Ed.), Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics (pp. 185–200). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Smith, C. (1997). The parameter of aspect (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Sodian, B., & Wimmer, H. (1987). Children’s understanding of inference as a source of knowledge. Child Development, 424–433.Google Scholar

Solomon, O. (2008). Language, autism, and childhood: An ethnographic perspective. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 28, 150–169.Google Scholar

Speelman, D., Grondelaers, S. & Geeraerts, D. (2003). Profile-based linguistic uniformity as a generic method for comparing language varieties. Computers and the Humanities, 37 , 317–337.Google Scholar

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition (Vol. 142). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Squartini, M. (2012). Evidentiality in interaction: The concessive use of the Italian future between grammar and discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(15), 2116–2128.Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives of English. In Rohdenburg, G. & Mondorf, B. (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation (pp. 413–444). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8, 209–243.Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (Eds). (2006). Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Stein, D., & Wright, S. (Eds). (1995). Subjectivity and subjectivisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sterponi, L. (2004). Construction of rules, accountability and moral identity by high-functioning children with autism. Discourse Studies, 6(2), 207–228.Google Scholar

Sterponi, L., & de Kirby, K. (2016). A multidimensional reappraisal of language in autism: Insights from a discourse analytic study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(2), 394–405.Google Scholar

Stich, S., & Nichols, S. (1997). Cognitive penetrability, rationality and restricted simulation. Mind & Language, 12(3–4), 297–326.Google Scholar

Sun, X. X. (1999). Jindai Hanyu yuqici [Sentence fine particles in pre-modern Chinese]. Beijing: Yuwen Chubanshe [Yuwen Press].Google Scholar

Surian, L., Caldi, S. & Sperber, D. (2007). Attribution of beliefs by 13-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 18(7), 580–586.Google Scholar

Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure (Vol. 54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tager-Flusberg, H. (1999). A psychological approach to understanding the social and language impairments in autism. International Review of Psychiatry, 11(4), 325–334.Google Scholar

Tager-Flusberg, H. (2000). Language and understanding minds: Connections in autism. In Baron-Cohen, S., Tager-Flusberg, H. & Cohen, D. J. (Eds.), Understanding other minds: Perspectives from developmental cognitive neuroscience (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Tager-Flusberg, H., Calkins, S., Nolin, T., Bamberger, T., Anderson, M. & Chandwick-Dias, A. (1990). A longitudinal study of language acquisition in autistic and Down syndrome children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 20, 1–21.Google Scholar

Tager-Flusberg, H., Paul, P. & Lord, C. (2005). Language and communication in autism. In Volkmar, F. R., Klin, A., Paul, R. & Cohen, D. J. (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders (3rd ed., pp. 335–364). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, S. A., & Baayen, R. H. (2012). Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change, 24(2), 135–178.Google Scholar

Tantucci, V. (2013). Interpersonal evidentiality: The Mandarin V-过 guo construction and other evidential systems beyond the ‘source of information’. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 210–230.Google Scholar

Tantucci, V. (2014). Immediate and extended intersubjectivity: Synchronic and diachronic interplay among evidentiality, factuality and other domains. PhD. Lancaster University.Google Scholar

Tantucci, V. (2015a). Epistemic inclination and factualization: A synchronic and diachronic study on the semantic gradience of factuality. Language and Cognition, 7(3), 371–414.Google Scholar

Tantucci, V. (2015b). Traversativity and grammaticalization: The aktionsart of 过 guo as a lexical source of evidentiality. Chinese Language and Discourse, 6(1), 57–100.Google Scholar

Tantucci, V. (2016a). Textual factualization: The phenomenology of assertive reformulation and presupposition during a speech event. Journal of Pragmatics, 101, 155–171.Google Scholar

Tantucci, V. (2016b). Towards a typology of constative speech acts: Actions beyond evidentiality, epistemic modality and factuality. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(2).Google Scholar

Tantucci, V. (2016c). Immediate and extended intersubjectification in language change: Beyond the opposition between ‘theory-theory’ and ‘simulation-theory’. In O’Nuallain, S. (Ed.), Dualism, platonism and voluntarism: Explorations at the quantum, microscopic, mesoscopic and symbolic neural levels. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Tantucci, V. (2016d). The factualization of ‘I suppose’ in American English: A corpus-based study of the subjectification of epistemic predicates toward factuality. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1773.Google Scholar

Tantucci, V. (2017a). From immediate to extended intersubjectification: A gradient approach to intersubjective awareness and semasiological change. Language and Cognition, 9(1), 88–120.Google Scholar

Tantucci, V. (2017b). An evolutionary approach to semasiological change: Overt influence attempts through the development of the Mandarin 吧-ba particle. Journal of Pragmatics, 120, 35–53.Google Scholar

Tantucci, V. (2020). From co-actionality to extended intersubjectivity: Drawing on language change and ontogenetic development. Applied Linguistics, 41(2), 185–214.Google Scholar

Tantucci, V., Culpeper, J. & Di Cristofaro, M. (2018). Dynamic resonance and social reciprocity in language change: The case of Good morrow. Language Sciences, 68, 6–21.Google Scholar

Tantucci, V., & Di Cristofaro, M. (2019). Entrenchment inhibition: Constructional change and repetitive behaviour can be in competition with large-scale ‘recompositional’ creativity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2019-0017.Google Scholar

Tantucci, V., & Di Cristofaro, M. (2020). Pre-emptive interaction in language change and ontogeny: the case of [there is no NP], Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (published online ahead of print 2020), 000010151520200007. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2020-0007.Google Scholar

Tantucci, V., & Wang, A. (2018). Illocutional concurrences: The case of evaluative speech acts and face-work in spoken Mandarin and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 138, 60–76.Google Scholar

Tantucci, V., & Wang, A. (2020a). Diachronic change of rapport orientation and sentence-periphery in Mandarin. Discourse Studies, 22(2), 146–173.Google Scholar

Tantucci, V., & Wang, A. (2020b). From co-actions to intersubjectivity throughout Chinese ontogeny: A usage-based analysis of knowledge ascription and expected agreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 167, 98–115.Google Scholar

Tardif, T., & Wellman, H. M. (2000). Acquisition of mental state language in Mandarin-and Cantonese-speaking children. Developmental Psychology, 36(1), 25.Google Scholar

Tatevosov, S. (2001). From resultatives to evidentials: Multiple uses of the perfect in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 443–464.Google Scholar

Taylor, J. R. (2012). The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Terkourafi, M. (2015). Conventionalization: A new agenda for im/politeness research. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 11–18.Google Scholar

Tobin, J. J., Wu, D. Y. & Davidson, D. H. (1989). Preschool in three cultures: Japan, China, and the United States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. (1998). Reference: Intending that others jointly attend. Pragmatics & Cognition, 6(1–2), 229–243.Google Scholar