References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 June 2023
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Referring in LanguageAn Integrated Approach, pp. 222 - 239Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Abbott, B. (2019). The indefiniteness of definiteness. In Abbott, B. and Gundel, J. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 158–175.Google Scholar
Ädel, A. (2014). Metonymy in the semantic field of verbal communication: A corpus-based analysis of WORD. Journal of Pragmatics, 67, 72–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aitchison, J. (1994). Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Aitchison, J. (2011). The Articulate Mammal: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Al-Sharafi, A. (2000). Towards a textual theory of metonymy: A semiotic approach to the nature and role of metonymy in text. PhD dissertation, University of Durham.Google Scholar
Al-Sharafi, A. (2004). Textual Metonymy: A Semiotic Approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allan, K. (2013). What is common ground? In Capone, A., Lo Piparo, F. and Carapezza, M. (eds.), Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 285–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2012). Communication strategies for patient handoffs: Committee Opinion No. 517. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 119, 408–411.Google Scholar
Amoia, M., Kunz, K. and Lapshinova-Koltuns, K. (2012). Coreference in spoken vs. written texts: A corpus-based analysis. In LREC (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference in Language Resources and Evaluation. Istanbul: European Language Resource Association, 158–164.Google Scholar
Appelt, D. (1985/1988). Planning English referring expressions. In McDonald, D. and Bolc, L. (eds.), Natural Language Generation Systems. Berlin: Springer, 69–97.Google Scholar
Appelt, D. and Kronfeld, A. (1987). A computational model of referring. In Proceedings of the 10th IJCAI, Milan, Italy, 640–647.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (1989). Review of Discourse Structure and Anaphora, by B. A. Fox. Journal of Linguistics, 25(2), 493–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. (1994). Interpreting anaphoric expressions: A cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journal of Linguistics, 30, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. (1996). Referring expressions and the +/− coreference distinction. In Gundel, J. and Fretheim, T. (eds.), Referent and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 13–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. (2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. In Sanders, T., Schilperoord, J. and Spooren, W. (eds.), Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 29–87.Google Scholar
Arnold, J., Eisenband, J., Brown-Schmidt, S. and Trueswell, J. (2000). The rapid use of gender information: Evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition, 76, B13–B26.Google Scholar
Athanasakis, E. (2013). Synthesizing knowledge about nursing shift handovers: Overview and reflections from evidence-based literature. International Journal of Caring Sciences. 6(3), 300–313.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (2008). On referring and not referring. In Gundel, J. K. and Hedberg, N. (eds.), Reference: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 13–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bangerter, A., Mayor, E. and Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). Reported speech in conversational storytelling during nursing shift handover meetings. Discourse Processes, 48(3), 183–214.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2019). Metonymy. In Dąbrowska, E. and Divjak, D. (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations of Language. Berlin: De Gruyter, 167–194.Google Scholar
Barnden, J. A. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1–34.Google Scholar
Bartlett, T., Ylanne, V., Spilioti, T. and Aldridge-Waddon, M. (2020). Nursing handovers as unbounded and scalar events. Applied Linguistics Review, 12(3), 401–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, M. (1975). An Introduction to Systemic Linguistics: I. Structures and Systems. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Berry, M. (2013). Towards a study of the differences between formal written English and informal spoken English. In Fontaine, L., Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G. (eds.), Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 365–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, M. (2017). Stratum, delicacy, realisation and rank. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge, 42–55.Google Scholar
Bevacqua, L., Loáiciga, S., Rohde, H. and Hardmeier, C. (2021). Event and entity coreference across five European languages: Effects of context and referring expression. Dialogue and Discourse, 21(2), 192–226.Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, A. (2019). Joint reference. In Gundel, J. K. and Abbott, B. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 45–66.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (2000). Investigating language use through corpus-based analyses of association patterns. In Kemmer, S. and Barlow, M. (eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI, 287–313.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (2012). Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 9–37.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Clark, V. (2002). Historical shifts in modification patterns with complex noun phrase structures: How long can you go without a verb? In Fanego, T., Lopez-Couso, M. J. and Perez-Guerra, J. (eds.), English Historical Syntax and Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. and Conrad, S. (2009). Register, Genre and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S. and Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., Johansson, S. and Leech, G. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Birner, B. and Ward, G. (1994). Uniqueness, familiarity, and the definite article in English. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 20, 93–102.Google Scholar
Bischoff, S. and Jany, C. (2013). Introduction. In Bischoff, S. and Jany, C. (eds.), Functional Approaches to Language. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowcher, W. L. (2019). Context and register. In Thompson, G., Bowcher, W. L., Fontaine, L. and Schönthal, D. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 142–170.Google Scholar
Bowen, N. (2016). Modelling choice in digital writing: Functional revisions and ‘texture’. PhD thesis, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
Bowen, N. and Thomas, N. (2020). Manipulating texture and cohesion in academic writing: A keystroke logging study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50, 100773.Google Scholar
Bowerman, J. (2016). Examining the nature of referential metonymy. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 28, 1–19.Google Scholar
Bowerman, J. (2019). What’s really going on with the ham sandwich? An investigation into the nature of referential metonymy. International Review of Pragmatics, 11, 22–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branigan, H., Bell, J. and McLean, J. (2016). Do you know what I know? The impact of participant role in children’s referential communication. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 213.Google Scholar
Branigan, H., Tosi, A. and Gillespie-Smith, K. (2016). Spontaneous lexical alignment in children with an autistic spectrum disorder and their typically developing peers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(11), 1821–1831.Google Scholar
Breban, T. (2010). English Adjectives of Comparison: Lexical and Grammaticalized Uses. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Breban, T. (2011). Secondary determiners as markers of generalized instantiation in English Noun Phrases. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(3), 511–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breban, T. and Davidse, K. (2003). Adjectives of comparison: The grammaticalization of their attribute uses into postdeterminer and classifier uses. Folia Linguistica, 37(3/4), 269–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, S. (2000). Processes that shape conversation and their implications for Computational Linguistics. In Proceedings, 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Hong Kong: ACL. Available at: www.aclweb.org/anthology/P00-1001. Accessed 04/08/14Google Scholar
Brennan, S. and Clark, H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22, 1482–1493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1482.Google Scholar
Brown, G. (1995). Speakers, Listeners and Communication. Explorations in Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burgoon, M., Denning, P. and Roberts, L. (2002). Language expectancy theory. In Dillard, J. and Pfau, M. (eds.), The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 117–137.Google Scholar
Butler, C. (2005). Functional approaches to language. In Butler, C., Gómez González, M. d. L. A. and Doval-Suárez, S. (eds.), The Dynamics of Language Use: Functional and Contrastive Perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3–17.Google Scholar
Butler, C. and Gonzálvez-García, F. (2014). Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 49–69.Google Scholar
Camp, M., Cole, A. and Sadler, J. (2020). Addicts and admits: Metonymy in medical students’ reflective writing. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 32(1), 23–33. https://doi:10.1080/10401334.2019.1607742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, A., Brooks, P. and Tomasello, M. (2000). Factors affecting young children’s use of pronouns as referring expressions. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 1337–1349.Google Scholar
Castillo, L., Smith, K. and Branigan, H. (2019). Interaction promotes the adaptation of referential conventions to the communicative context. Cognitive Science, 43(8), Article e12780. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12780.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1972). Discourse structure and human knowledge. In Freedle, R. and Carrol, J. (eds.), Language Comprehension and the Acquisition of Knowledge. New York: Academic Press, 41–69.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 25–55.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness and Time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chrispin, L. (2022). A cognitive functional account of pure intransitive verbal categories and their intransitive patterning. PhD thesis, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
Chrispin, L. and Fontaine, L. (2023). A cognitive-functional approach to ‘watch’ as a verb of perception. In McGregor, W., Van linden, A., Gentens, C. and Ghesquière, L. (eds.), Reconnecting Form and Meaning: Lexis and Grammar from Cognitive-Functional and Usage-Based Perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 209–236.Google Scholar
Christopherson, P. (1939). The Articles: A Study of their Theory and Use in English. London: Einar Munksgaard and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2014). Pauses in spontaneous written communication: A keystroke logging study. Journal of Writing Research, 6(1), 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CiF Editorial (2009). In praise of... Reader’s Digest. The Guardian. Available at: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/aug/21/readers-digest-journalism-news. Accessed 6 December 2022.Google Scholar
Cislaru, G. (2007). Metonymic modelling of discourse, discourse modelling of metonymy. The case of the place-name based metonymies. Culture, Language and Representation. Revista de Estudios Culturales de la Universitat Jaume I, 5, 93–110.Google Scholar
Clancy, P. (1980). Referential choice in English and Japanese discourse. In Chafe, W. (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood: Ablex, 127–201.Google Scholar
Clapp, L., Reimer, M. and Spire, A. (2019). Negative existentials. In Gundel, J. and Abbott, B. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 203–235.Google Scholar
Clark, E. (2007). Young children’s uptake of new words in conversation. Language in Society, 36(2), 157–182.Google Scholar
Clark, E. and Bernicot, J. (2008). Repetition as ratification: How parents and children place information in common grounds. Journal of Child Language, 35(2), 349–371.Google Scholar
Clark, H. and Marshall, C. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshi, A., Webber, B. and Sag, I. (eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 10–63.Google Scholar
Clark, H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39.Google Scholar
Clark, H., Schreuder, R. and Buttrick, S. (1983). Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 22, 245–258.Google Scholar
Coene, M. (2006). On the acquisition of the indefinite article: A cross-linguistic study of French, Italian, Romanian and Spanish child speech. In Vogeleer, S. (ed.) Bare Plurals, Indefinites and Weak-Strong Distinction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 121–146.Google Scholar
Cornish, F. (1989). Discourse structure and anaphora: Written and conversational English, Lingua, 79(2–3), 229–243.Google Scholar
Cornish, F. (1999). Anaphora, Discourse and Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cornish, F. (2010). Anaphora: Text-based or discourse- dependent? Functionalist vs. formalist accounts. Functions of Language, 17, 207–241.Google Scholar
Cotterill, J. (2001). Domestic discord, rocky relationships: Semantic prosodies in representations of marital violence in the O. J. Simpson Trial. Discourse and Society, 12(3), 291–312. https://doi:10.1177/0957926501012003002.Google Scholar
Cozens, C. and O’Carroll, L. (2004).The man who came in from the cold. The Guardian. 29 January 2004. Available at: www.theguardian.com/media/2004/jan/29/broadcasting.huttoninquiry1. Accessed 6th Dec 2022Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2002). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In Dirven, R. and Pörings, R. (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin: De Gruyter, 161–205.Google Scholar
Croft, W. and Cruise, A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crompton, P. (2008). Definiteness and indefiniteness in theme. In Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (ed.), Corpus Linguistics, Computer Tools, and Applications – State of the Art. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 309–328.Google Scholar
Dale, R. (1989). Cooking up referring expressions. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Dale, R. and Reiter, E. (1995). Computational interpretations of the Gricean maxims in the generation of referring expressions. Cognitive Science, 19, 233–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, R., Geldof, S. and Prost, J-P. (2005). Using natural language generation in automatic route description. Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology, 37(1), 89–105.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B. (2009). Genitives and proper names in constructional blends. In Evans, V. and Pourcel, S. (eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B. (2011). Cognitive linguistics and the study of textual meaning. Constructions and Frames, 3(2), 208–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidse, K., Breban, T. and Van linden, A. (2008). Deictification: The development of secondary deictic meanings by adjectives in the English NP. English Language and Linguistics, 12, 475–503.Google Scholar
Davies, C. (2004). A corpus-based investigation of noun to verb conversion in English. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
Davies, C., Andrés-Roqueta, C. and Norbury, C. (2016). Referring expressions and structural language abilities in children with specific language impairment: A pragmatic tolerance account. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 144, 98–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Haan, P. (1987). Relative clauses in indefinite noun phrases. English Studies, 68, 171–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Haan, P. (1989). Postmodifying Clauses in the English Noun Phrase: A Corpus-Based Study. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denroche, C. (2018). Text metaphtonymy: The interplay of metonymy and metaphor in discourse. Metaphor and the Social World, 8(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Dirven, R. (2002). Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualization. In Dirven, R and Pörings, R. (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin: De Gruyter, 75–111.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. (1980). Beyond definiteness. The trace of identity in discourse. In Chafe, W. (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood: Ablex, 203–274.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. (1997). Definiteness, reference and analogues. University of California, Santa Barbara. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. (ed.) (2000). Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Part 1. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. (ed.) (2003a). Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Part 2. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. (2003b). Argument structure: Grammar in use. In Du Bois, J., Kumpf, L. and Ashby, W. (eds.), Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as Architecture for Function. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 11–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, S. (2002). Legal institutions, nonspeaking recipiency and participants’ orientations. Discourse and Society, 13(6), 731–747. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926502013006753.Google Scholar
Epstein, R. (1994). Discourse and definiteness: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives. PhD dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Epstein, R. (2002). The definite article, accessibility, and the construction of discourse referents. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(4), 333–378.Google Scholar
Evans, G. (1982). The Varieties of Reference (published posthumously, McDowell, J. (ed.)). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Falkum, I., Recasens, M. and Clark, E. (2017). ‘The moustache sits down first’: On the acquisition of metonymy. Journal of Child Language, 43, 87–119.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. (1980). Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction: Towards an Integrated Model of a Systemic Functional Grammar and the Other Components of an Interacting Mind. Heidelberg: Julius Groos and Exeter University.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. (1993). Language as program: A reassessment of the nature of descriptive linguistics. Language Sciences, 14(4), 623–657.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. (2000). A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. (2004). Extracts from THE SYSTEM NETWORK AND REALIZATION RULES FOR ‘THING’ showing systems that enter into the generation of MODIFIERS and QUALIFIERS in the ENGLISH NOMINAL GROUP. Unpublished manuscript, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. (2007). Modelling ‘Selection’ between Referents in the English Nominal Group. In Butler, C., Hidalgo Downing, R. and Lavid, J. (eds.), Functional Perspectives on Grammar and Discourse: In Honour of Angela Downing. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 165–204.Google Scholar
Flower, L. and Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontaine, L. (2008). A systemic functional approach to referring expressions: Reconsidering postmodification in the nominal group. PhD thesis, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
Fontaine, L. (2012). Analyzing English Grammar: A Systemic-Functional Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fontaine, L. (2013). Semantic options and complex functions: A recursive view of choice. In Fontaine, L., Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G. (eds.), Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 95–114.Google Scholar
Fontaine, L. (2017). The English Nominal Group: The centrality of the Thing element. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G. (eds.), Routledge Systemic Functional Linguistic Handbook. London: Routledge, 267–283.Google Scholar
Fontaine, L. (2018). The noun, grammar and context. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 11, 2–3.Google Scholar
Fontaine, L. (2019). A textual perspective on referential metonymy. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada, 37(70), 199–225.Google Scholar
Fontaine, L. and Aldridge, M. (2015). The impact of mode on writing processes: A cognitive functional perspective on student writing. LyCE Estudios, 17, 9–34.Google Scholar
Fontaine, L. and Jones, K. (2020). We are all one: Shifting reference in reconciliation talk. In Zappavigna, M. and Dreyfus, S. (eds.), Discourses of Hope and Reconciliation. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 185–204.Google Scholar
Fontaine, L. and Schönthal, D. (2020). Referring and the nominal group: A closer look at the selector element. In Tucker, G., Huang, G., Fontaine, L. and McDonald, E. (eds.), Approaches to Systemic Functional Grammar. London: Equinox, 174–190.Google Scholar
Fontaine, L. and Wegener, R. (2022). Epilogue. In Aldridge, M. and Asp, E. (eds.), Theories and Evidences in Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge, 170–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. (1987). Discourse, Structure and Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1892/1993). On sense and reference. In Moore, A. (ed.), Meaning and Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 23–42.Google Scholar
Fries, P. (1970). Tagmeme Sequences in the English Noun Phrase. Oklahoma: Benjamin F. Elson.Google Scholar
Fries, P. (1983). On the status of theme in English: Arguments from discourse. In Petöfi, J. and Sözer, E. (eds.), Micro and Macro Connexity of Texts. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, 116–152.Google Scholar
Fries, P. (2001). Issues in modeling the textual metafunction: A constructive approach. In Scott, M. and Thompson, G. (eds.), Patterns of Text: In Honour of Michael Hoey. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 83–107.Google Scholar
Garnham, A. (2001). Mental Models and the Interpretation of Anaphora. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Geluykens, R. (1994). The Pragmatics of Discourse Anaphora in English: Evidence from Conversational Repair. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. (1991). Comprehending conceptual anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 81–105.Google Scholar
Ghesquière, L. (2014). The Directionality of (Inter)subjectification in the English Noun Phrase: Pathways of Change. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Givón, T. (ed.), Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 4–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1985). Iconicity, isomporphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In Haiman, J. (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 187–219.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1989). Mind, Code and Context. Essays in Pragmatics. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1993a). English Grammar 1. A Functional-Based Introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1993b). English Grammar 2. A Functional-Based Introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gray, B. (2006). This and these as pronouns and determiners: A corpus-based study of published academic research articles. PhD dissertation, Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Gray, B. (2010). On the use of demonstrative pronouns and determiners as cohesive devices: A focus on sentence-initial this/these in academic prose. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(3), 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenstein, T. (2008). Israel’s Royal welcome. The Guardian. 25 March 2008. Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/25/israelsroyalwelcome. Accessed 6 December 2022Google Scholar
Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Seminar Press, 225–242.Google Scholar
Grigoroglou, M. (2018). Informativeness in children’s event descriptions: Effects of task, typicality and listener needs. PhD dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. (1996). Relevance theory meets the givenness hierarchy. An account of inferrables. In Gundel, J. K. and Fretheim, T. (eds.), Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 141–153.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. and Johnson, K. (2013). Children’s use of referring expressions in spontaneous discourse: Implications for theory of mind development. Journal of Pragmatics, 56, 43–57.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2), 274–307.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R. (2019). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. In Gundel, J. K. and Abbott, B. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 67–99.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., Zacharski, R., Mulkern, A., Custis, T., Swierzbin, B. and Watters, S. (2006). Coding protocol for statuses on the givenness hierarchy. Manuscript, University of Minnesota. Available at: www.sfu.ca/~hedberg/Coding_for_Cognitive_Status.pdf. Accessed 16 May 2013.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 1. Journal of Linguistics, 3(1), 37–81.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1968). Users and uses of language. In Fishman, J. (ed.), Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton, 139–169.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language, 6(3), 322–361.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1975/2004). Learning how to mean. In Webster, J. (ed.), The Language of Early Childhood. Collected Works of M. A. K Halliday, vol 3. London: Continuum, 28–59.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1977/2002). Text as semantic choice in social contexts (1977). In Webster, J. (ed.), Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse. Collected Works of M. A. K Halliday, vol 2. London: Continuum, 23–84.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1981/2002). Text semantics and clause grammar: How is a text like a clause? In Webster, J. (ed.), On Grammar, Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol 1. London: Continuum, 219–260.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1991/2007). The notion of ‘context’ in language education. In Webster, J. (ed.), Language and Education. Collected Works of M. A. K Halliday, vol 9. London: Continuum, 269–290.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1992/2002). Spoken and written modes of meaning. In Webster, J. (ed.), On Grammar. Collected Works of M. A. K Halliday, vol 1. London: Continuum, 323–351.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1997/2003). Linguistics as metaphor. In Webster, J. (ed.), On Language and Linguistics. Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol 3. London: Continuum, 248–270.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1998/2004). Representing the child as a semiotic being (one who means). In Webster, J. (ed.), The Language of Early Childhood. Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol 3. London: Continuum, 6–27.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (2000/2002). Grammar and daily life: Concurrence and complementarity. In Webster, J. (ed.), On Grammar. Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol 1. London: Continuum, 369–383.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (2006/2013). Written language, standard language, global language. In Webster, J. (ed.), Halliday in the 21st Century. Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol 11. London: Continuum, 87–104.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (2011/2013). Why do we need to understand about language? In Webster, J. (ed.), Halliday in the 21st Century. Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol 11. London: Continuum, 71–82.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. (1999). Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-Based Approach to Cognition. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd ed. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hanks, P. (2000). Do word meanings exist? Computers and the Humanities, 34(1/2), 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P. (2013). Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, P. (2019). Reference as a speech act. In Gundel, J. K. and Abbott, B. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 11–18.Google Scholar
Hannah, J. and Brennan, S. (2007). Speakers’ eye gaze disambiguates referring expressions during face-to-face conversation. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 596–615.Google Scholar
Hartley, J. (2007). Longitudinal studies of the effects of new technologies on writing: Two case studies. In Torrance, M., Van Waes, L. and Galbraith, D. (eds.), Writing and Cognition: Research and Applications. Oxford: Elsevier, 293–306.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. (1985). The texture of a text. In Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (eds.), Language, Context and Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 52–69.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. (1998). Speaking with reference to context. In Ghadessy, M. (ed.), Text and Context in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 219–328.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2006). Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics, 42, 25–70.Google Scholar
Haviland, S. and Clark, H. (1974). What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 512–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. (1978). Definiteness and Indefiniteness. London: Humanities Press/Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. (1991). On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (Un)grammaticality, Prediction. Journal of Linguistics, 27, 405–442.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. (1981). Towards an account of the possessive constructions: NP’s N and N of NP. Journal of Linguistics, 17, 247–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R. (1984). A note on referent identifiability and co-presence. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 649–659.Google Scholar
Hendriks, P., Koster, C. and Hoeks, J. (2014). Referential choice across the lifespan: Why children and elderly adults produce ambiguous pronouns. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(4), 391–407. https://doi:10.1080/01690965.2013.766356.Google Scholar
Hickmann, M. (2003). Children’s Discourse: Person, Space, and Time across Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2006). Keeping an eye on the data: Metonymies and their patterns. In Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S. Th. (eds.), Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin: De Gruyter, 123–151.Google Scholar
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In Connor, U. and Kaplan, R. (eds.), Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 141–152.Google Scholar
Horacek, H. (1997). An algorithm for generating referential descriptions with flexible interfaces. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL97/EACL97), Madrid, Spain, 206–213.Google Scholar
Hughes, M. and Allen, S. (2015). The incremental effect of discourse-pragmatic sensitivity on referential choice in the acquisition of a first language. Lingua, 155, 43–61.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. (2007). Semantic prosody revisited. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12(2), 49–268.Google Scholar
Hurford, J., Heasley, B. and Smith, M. (2007). Semantics: A Coursebook. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffries, S. (2013). David Beckham: How this crock of a footballer can still woo the French. The Guardian. 1 February 2013. Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/01/david-beckham-woo-french-football. Accessed 6 December 2022.Google Scholar
Jiang, X. (2013). Referential metonymy: Reference transfer and pragmatic motivations. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 25, 1–19.Google Scholar
Johnston, T. and Schembri, A. (2007). Australian Sign Language (Auslan): An Introduction to Sign Language Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, K. (2014). Towards an understanding of the use of indefinite expressions for definite reference in English discourse. PhD thesis, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
Jones, K. (2018). ‘A man who revels in his own ignorance, racism and misogyny’: Identifiable referents trump indefinite grammar. Functional Linguistics, 5, article number: 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. (2012). Social Stylistics: Syntactic Variation in British Newspapers. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (1996). Preferred argument structure and subject role in American English conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 675–701.Google Scholar
Kartunnen, L. (1976). Discourse Referents. Reprinted in Syntax and Semantics. London: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Kavalir, M. (2017). Post-deictic and grounding. In Neumann, S., Wegener, R., Fest, J., Niemietz, P. and Hützen, N. (eds.), Challenging Boundaries in Linguistics: Systemic Functional Perspectives. Aachen British and American Studies Series. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag, 53–72.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. (2001). Competition for working memory among writing processes. The American Journal of Psychology, 114(2), 175–191.Google Scholar
Kemmer, S. and Barlow, M. (2000). Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In Kemmer, S. and Barlow, M. (eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI, vii–xxviii.Google Scholar
Kibrik, A., Khudyakova, M., Dobrov, G., Linnik, A. and Zalmanov, D. (2016). Referential choice: Predictability and its limits. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–21. https://doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01429.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P. and Suchomel, V. (2014). The sketch engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1, 7–36.Google Scholar
Klassen, K. (2018). Investigating the lexical load of proper names for L2 English readers. PhD thesis, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
Klassen, K. (2021). Proper name theory and implications for second language reading. Language Teaching, 55(2), 149–155. https://doi:10.1017/S026144482100015X.Google Scholar
Köder, F. and Falkum, I. L. (2020). Children’s metonymy comprehension: Evidence from eye-tracking and picture selection. Journal of Pragmatics, 156, 191–205.Google Scholar
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Kronfeld, A. (1990). Reference and Computation: An Essay in Applied Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kronmüller, E. and Barr, D. (2015). Referential precedents in spoken language comprehension: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 1–19. https://doi:10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.008.Google Scholar
Kronrod, A. and Engel, O. (2001). Accessibility theory and referring expressions in newspaper headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 683–699.Google Scholar
Kunz, K., Lapshinova-Koltunski, E., Martínez-Martínez, J., Menzel, K. and Steiner, E. (2021). GECCo – German-English Contrasts in Cohesion: Insights from Corpus-Based Studies of Languages, Registers and Modes. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laing, C. (2019). Phonological motivation for the acquisition of onomatopoeia: An analysis of early words. Language Learning and Development, 15(2), 177–197. https://doi:10.1080/15475441.2019.1577138.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application, vol 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (2004). Remarks on nominal grounding. Functions of Language, 11(1), 77–113.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. (2013). A History of Psycholinguistics : The Pre-Chomskyan Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. and Tagg, C. (2018). Metonymy and text messaging: A framework for understanding creative uses of metonymy. Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 481–507.Google Scholar
Lloyd, H., Bartlett, T., Aldridge-Waddon, M., Spilioti, T., and Ylanne, V. (2021). Opening up space for compassion in nurses’ handover meetings. Communication and Medicine, 16(3), 224–237.Google Scholar
Lukin, A., Moore, A., Herke, M., Wegener, R. and Wu, C. (2011). Halliday’s model of register revisited and explored. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 4(2), 187–213.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, I. (2015). Rethinking reader and writer responsibility in academic English. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2015-0001Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. (1974). Children’s use of definite and indefinite articles. Child Development, 45(2), 446–455.Google Scholar
Martin, J. (2019). Discourse semantics. In Thompson, G., Bowcher, W., Fontaine, L. and Schönthal, D. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 358–381. https://doi:10.1017/9781316337936.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Insua, A. E. and Pérez-Guerra, J. (2011). An open-sesame approach to English noun phrases: Defining the NP. English Language and Linguistics, 15(2), 201–221. https://doi:10.1017/S1360674311000013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, D., Lieven, E. and Tomasello, M. (2007). How toddlers and preschoolers learn to uniquely identify referents for others: A training study. Child Development, 78(6), 1744–1759.Google Scholar
McCabe, A. (2021). A Functional Linguistic Perspective on Developing Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meir, N. and Novogrodsky, R. (2021). Referential expressions in monolingual and bilingual children with and without Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): A study of informativeness and definiteness. Journal of Child Language, 1–30. https://doi:10.1017/S0305000921000702.Google Scholar
Metzing, C. and Brennan, S. (2003). When conceptual pacts are broken: Partner-specific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 201–213.Google Scholar
Moors, A. (2015). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing in mental health. PhD dissertation, University of Technology Sydney.Google Scholar
Mulkern, A. (1996). The game of the name. In Gundel, J. K. and Fretheim, T. (eds.), Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 235–250.Google Scholar
Nida-Rümelin, J. (2000). Rationality: Coherence and structure. In Nida-Rümelin, J. and Spohn, W. (eds.), Rationality, Rules, and Structure. Theory and Decision Library, vol 28. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9616-9_1.Google Scholar
Nozari, N. and Novick, J. (2017). Monitoring and control in language production. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(5), 403–410.Google Scholar
Nunberg, G. (1979). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions. Polysemy, Linguistics and Philosophy, 3, 143–184.Google Scholar
Oakhill, J., Garnham, A., Gernsbacher, M. and Cain, K. (1992). How natural are conceptual anaphors? Language and Cognitive Processes, 7(3/4), 257–280.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, K. (2004). Mathematical Discourse: Language, Symbolism and Visual Images. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M. (2021). Dynamic modelling of context: Field, Tenor and Mode revisited. Lingua. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102952.Google Scholar
O’Neill, D. (1996). Two-year-old children’s sensitivity to a parent’s knowledge state when making requests. Child Development, 67(2), 659–677. https://doi:10.2307/1131839.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U. (2006). Metonymy as usage event. In Kristiansen, G., Achard, M., Dirven, R. and de Mendoza Ibañez, R. (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter, 147–186.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U. and Thornburg, L. (2009). The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals. In Dirven, R. and Pörings, R. (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 279–322.Google Scholar
Paris, C. and McKeown, K. (1987). Discourse strategies for describing complex physical objects. In Kempen, G. (ed.), Natural Language Generation. NATO ASI Series, vol 135. Springer: Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3645-4_8.Google Scholar
Peirsman, Y. and Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269–316.Google Scholar
Perniss, P. and Özyürek, A. (2015). Visible cohesion: A comparison of reference tracking in sign, speech, and co-speech gesture. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(1), 36–60. https://doi:10.1111/tops.12122. Epub 4 December 2014. PMID: 25472492.Google Scholar
Piolat, A., Roussey, J.-Y., Olive, T. and Farioli, F. (1996). Charge mentale et mobilisation des processus rédactionnels: examen de la procédure de Kellogg. Psychologie Française, 41(4), 339–354.Google Scholar
Poix, C. (2018). Neology in children’s literature: A typology of occasionalisms. Lexis [Online], 12. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/lexis/2111; doi:10.4000/lexis.2111Google Scholar
Polguère, A. (2015). Lexical contextualism: The Abélard Syndrome. In Gala, N., Rapp, R. and Bel-Enguix, G. (eds.), Language Production, Cognition, and the Lexicon, 48. London: Springer, 53–73.Google Scholar
Power, R. (1999). Generating referring expressions with a unification grammar. In Proceedings of the Nth Conference of the European Association for Computation Linguistics, Bergen, Norway.Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given–new information. In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 223–255.Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1992). Subjects, definiteness and information status. In Mann, W. C. and Thompson, S. A. (eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 295–325.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, S. and Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, G. (2009). Generic reference in English: A metonymic and conceptual blending analysis. In Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L. and Barcelona, A. (eds.), Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 199–228.Google Scholar
Raeisi, A., Rarani, M. and Soltani, F. (2019). Challenges of patient handover process in healthcare services: A systematic review. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 8, 173. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_460_18.Google Scholar
Reboul, A. (1997). What (if anything) is accessibility? A relevance-oriented criticism of Ariel’s Accessibility Theory of referring expressions. In Connolly, J., Vismans, R., Butler, C. and Gatward, R. (eds.), Discourse and Pragmatics in Functional Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter, 91–108.Google Scholar
Reiter, E. and Dale, R. (1997). Building applied natural language generation systems. Journal of Natural Language Engineering, 3, 57–87.Google Scholar
Reiter, E., Sripada, S., Hunter, J., Yu, J. and Davy, I. (2005). Choosing words in computer-generated weather forecasts. Artificial Intelligence, 67, 137–169.Google Scholar
Rigby, B. (2022). Interview with B. Johnson. Sky News. www.youtube.com/watch?v=7upXsB4ztkE.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (2019). Contextual influences on reference. In Abbott, B. and Gundel, J. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 302–324.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192–233.Google Scholar
Rozendaal, M. and Baker, A. (2008). A cross-linguistic investigation of the acquisition of the pragmatics of indefinite and definite reference in two-year olds. Journal of Child Language, 35, 773–807.Google Scholar
Rudge, L. A. (2022). The nominal group in British Sign Language: A preliminary description. Word, 68(2), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2021.2024351.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. and Díez Velasco, O. (2003). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In Dirven, R. and Pöings, R. (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin: De Gruyter, 489–553.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1930). Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. London: G. Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Sachs, S. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception and Psychophysics, 2(9), 437–442.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, M. (2005). Reference without Referents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salazar-Orvig, A. (2019). Reference and referring expressions in first language acquisition. In Abbott, B. and Gundel, J. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 283–308.Google Scholar
Salazar-Orvig, A., Haydée, M., Caët, S., Corlateanu, C., da Silva, C., Hassan, R., Heurdier, J., Mené, M., Leber-Marin, J., and Morgenstern, A. (2013). Definite and indefinite determiners in French-speaking toddlers: Distributional features and pragmatic-discursive factors. Journal of Pragmatics, 56, 88–112.Google Scholar
Salazar-Orvig, A., de Weck, G., Hassan, R. and Rialland, A. (2021). A dialogical approach to the acquisition and usage of referring expressions: Theoretical challenges and methodological issues. In Salazar-Orvig, A., de Weck, G., Hassan, R. and Rialland, A. (eds.), The Acquisition of Referring Expressions: A Dialogical Approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2–38.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. and Garrod, S. (1981). Understanding Written Language: Explorations of Comprehension beyond the Sentence. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Sarda, L. and Carter-Thomas, S. (2021). Référence, qualification et distribution de l’information : approche contrastive français-anglais. Travaux de Linguistique : Revue Internationale de Linguistique Française, De Boeck Université, 82, 45–76.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, J. and Matthewson, L. (2005). Grammar and pragmatics in the acquisition of article systems. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 53–101.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (2006). In Other Words: Variation in Reference and Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schnedecker, C. (2018). Reference chains and genre identification: From Discrete to Non-Discrete Units. In Legallois, D., Charnois, T. and Larjavaara, M. (eds.), The Grammar of Genres and Styles. Berlin: De Gruyter, 39–66.Google Scholar
Schober, M. and Clark, H. (1989). Understanding addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 211–232.Google Scholar
Schönthal, D. (2016). On the multifaceted nature of English of-NPs: A theoretical, corpus, cotextual and cognitive approach. PhD thesis, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
Schönthal, D. (2022). The cohesive landscape of English of-NPs: An empirical, expression-centred approach to coherence. In Aldridge, M. and Asp, E. (eds.), Theories and Evidences in Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schouten, C. and Vonk, W. (1995). On the use of marked indefinite noun phrases. The Perspectival Nature of Indefinite Noun Anaphors. Technical Report, ESPRIT Project 6665 DANDELION. Tilburg / Nijmegen etc.: DANDELION Consortium and CEC.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1990). Foreword. In Kronfeld, A. (ed.), Reference and Computation: An Essay in Applied Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, xiii–xviii.Google Scholar
Serratrice, L. and Allen, S. (2015). Introduction: An overview of the acquisition of reference. In Serratrice, L. and Allen, S. (eds.), The Acquisition of Reference. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1–24.Google Scholar
Shallow, J. (n.d.). The way i see things [illustration].Google Scholar
Sharples, M. (1996). An account of writing as creative design. In Levy, C. M. and Ransdell, S. (eds.), The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 127–148.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R., Cabrelli Amaro, J. and Kyun Kang, S. (2016). Regular and novel metonymy: Can you curl up with a Good Agatha Christie in Your Second Language? Applied Linguistics, 37(2), 175–197.Google Scholar
SmithJr, E. (1986). Achieving impact through the interpersonal component. In Couture, B. (ed.), Functional Approaches to Writing: Research Perspectives. London: Frances Pinter, 108–119.Google Scholar
Spilioti, T., Aldridge-Waddon, M., Bartlett, T. and Ylanne, V. (2019). Conceptualizing language awareness in healthcare communication: The case of nurse shift-change handover meetings. Language Awareness, 28(3), 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegemann-Philipps, C., Butz, M., Winkler, S. and Achimova, A. (2021). Speakers use more informative referring expressions to describe surprising events. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 43. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7374p5xq.Google Scholar
Stegenwallner-Schütz, M. and Adani, F. (2020). Production of referring expressions by children with ASD: Effects of referent accessibility and working memory capacity. Language Acquisition, 27(3), 276–305. https://doi:10.1080/10489223.2020.1769625.Google Scholar
Steiner, E. (2004). Ideational grammatical metaphor: Exploring some implications for the overall model. Languages in Contrast, 4(1), 139–166.Google Scholar
Stern, C. and Stern, W. (1907). Die Kindersprache. Eine psychologische und sprachtheoretische Untersuchung. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth.Google Scholar
Stromswold, K. (2000). The cognitive neuroscience of language acquisition. In Gazzaniga, M. (ed.), The New Cognitive Neurosciences. Cambridge: MIT Press, 909–932.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. (1993). British traditions in text analysis: From Firth to Sinclair. In Baker, M., Francis, G. and Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds.), Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1–33.Google Scholar
Svennevig, J. (2010). Pre-empting reference problems in conversation. Language in Society, 39, 173–202. https://doi:10.1017/S0047404510000060.Google Scholar
Taverniers, M. 2011. The syntax–semantics interface in systemic functional grammar: Halliday’s interpretation of the Hjelmslevian model of stratification. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1100–1126.Google Scholar
Theakston, A. (2012). ‘The spotty cow tickled the pig with a curly tail’: How do sentence position, preferred argument structure, and referential complexity affect children’s and adults’ choice of referring expression? Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(4), 691–724. https://doi:10.1017/S0142716411000531.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. (1987). Linguistic reflections of cognitive events. In Tomlin, R. (ed.) Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 455–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toole, J. (1996). The effect of genre on referential choice. In Gundel, J. and Fretheim, T. (eds.), Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tourtouri, E., Delogu, F. and Crocker, M. (2021). Rational redundancy in referring expressions: Evidence from event-related potentials. Cognitive Science, 45(12), e13071. https://doi:10.1111/cogs.13071.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trevisan, P. and García, A. (2019). Systemic functional grammar as a tool for experimental stimulus design: New appliable horizons in psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics. Language Sciences, 75, 35–46.Google Scholar
“typical, adj.” OED Online. Oxford University Press, March 2022. Accessed 17 March 2022.Google Scholar
Ushie, Y. (1986). ‘Corepresentation’ – A textual function of the indefinite expression. Text, 6(4), 427–446.Google Scholar
Uzundag, B. and Küntay, A. (2018). Children’s referential communication skills: The role of cognitive abilities and adult models of speech. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 172, 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.02.009.Google Scholar
van Lier, E. and Rijkhoff, J. (2013). Flexible word classes in linguistic typology and grammatical theory. In Rijkhoff, J. and van Lier, E. (eds.), Flexible Word-Classes: A Typological Study of Underspecified Parts of-Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–30.Google Scholar
Vogels, J., Krahmer, E. and Maes, A. (2019). Accessibility and reference production: The interplay between linguistic and non-linguistic factors. In Abbott, B. and Gundel, J. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 337–364.Google Scholar
Vonk, W., Hustinx, L. and Simons, W. (1992). The use of referential expressions in structuring discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7(3–4), 301–333.Google Scholar
Wegener, R. and Fontaine, L. (2023, in press). A functional approach to context. In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Language and Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weil, H. (1844). De L’ordre des Mots dans les Langues Anciennes Comparées aux Langues Modernes. Paris: Didier Erudition.Google Scholar
Wilkes-Gibbs, D. and Clark, H. H. (1992). Coordinating beliefs in conversation. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(2), 183–194.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. (1553). The arte of rhetorique for the vse of all soche as are studious of eloquence. London: R. Graftonus.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching, 32(4), 213–231. https://doi:10.1017/S0261444800014154.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2015). Why are we so sure we know what a word is?. In Taylor, J. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Word. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 725–750.Google Scholar
Wray, A. and Perkins, M. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication, 20(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Wright, P. (1990). Using constraints and reference in task-oriented dialogue. Journal of Semantics, 7, 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, H. (2023). The informational role of nominal expressions in structuring English Text. PhD thesis, RWTH Aachen University.Google Scholar