Abbott, Barbara, 2000. Presuppositions as nonassertions. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1419–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Abbott, Barbara, 2006. Where have some of the presuppositions gone? In Birner, Betty J. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–20.Google Scholar

Agha, Asif, 2007. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Aissen, Judith, 1997. On the syntax of obviation. Language 73: 705–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ambridge, Ben and Goldberg, Adele E., 2008. The island status of clausal complements: evidence in favor of an information structure explanation. Cognitive Linguistics 19: 357–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anscombre, Jean-Claude and Ducrot, Oswald, 1976. L'argumentation dans la langue. Langages 42: 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anscombre, Jean-Claude and Ducrot, Oswald, 1977. Deux mais en Français. Lingua 43: 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira, 1983. Linguistic marking of social prominence: the Hebrew mi she introducer. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 389–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira, 1985a. Givenness marking. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University.

Ariel, Mira, 1985b. The discourse functions of Given information. Theoretical Linguistics 12: 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira, 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24: 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira, 1990. Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira, 1998a. Discourse markers and form–function correlations. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Ziv, Yael, eds., Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 223–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira, 1998b. The linguistic status of the ‘here and now.’Cognitive Linguistics 9: 189–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira, 1999. Mapping so-called ‘pragmatic’ phenomena according to a ‘linguistic-extralinguistic’ distinction: the case of propositions marked ‘accessible.’ In Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith A., Newmeyer, Frederick J., Noonan, Michael and Wheatley, Kathleen M., eds., Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, vol. II: Case studies (Studies in Language Companion Series 41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 11–38.Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira, 2001. Accessibility theory: an overview. In Sanders, Ted J. M., Schilperoord, Joost and Spooren, Wilbert, eds., Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 29–87.Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira, 2002a. The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 361–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira, 2002b. Privileged interactional interpretations. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1003–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira, 2004. Most. Language 80: 658–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira, 2006a. The making of a construction: from reflexive marking to lower transitivity. Unpublished ms., Tel Aviv University.

Ariel, Mira, 2006b. A ‘just that’ lexical meaning for most. In Heusinger, Klaus and Turner, Ken, eds., Where Semantics meets Pragmatics (Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface). London: Elsevier, 49–91.Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira, 2007. Relational and independent strategies in interpreting and conjunctions. Unpublished ms., Tel Aviv University.

Ariel, Mira, 2008. Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira, forthcoming. On order, subordination and freedom. Leshonenu La-am: Special Issue in memory of Shaul Aloni (in Hebrew).

Arnold, Jennifer, Wasow, Thomas A., Losongco, Anthony and Ginstrom, Ryan, 2000. Heaviness versus newness: the effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76: 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atlas, Jay David and Levinson, Stephen C., 1981. It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form: radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In Cole, Peter, ed., Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 1–61.Google Scholar

Austin, John L., 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Bach, Kent, 1994a. Conversational implicature. Mind and Language 9: 124–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, Kent, 1994b. Semantic slack: what is said and more. In Tsohatzidis, Savas L., ed., Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives. London: Routledge, 267–291.Google Scholar

Bach, Kent, 1999a. The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 327–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, Kent, 1999b. The semantics–pragmatics distinction: what it is and why it matters. In Turner, Ken, ed., The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View. Oxford: Elsevier, 65–84.Google Scholar

Bach, Kent, 2002. Semantic, pragmatic. In Campbell, Joseph Keim, O'Rourke, Michael and Shier, David, eds., Meaning and Truth. New York: Seven Bridges Press, 284–292.Google Scholar

Bach, Kent, 2004a. Minding the gap. In Bianchi, Claudia, ed., The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford: CSLI, 27–43.Google Scholar

Bach, Kent, 2004b. Pragmatics and the philosophy of language. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 463–487.Google Scholar

Bach, Kent and Harnish, Robert M., 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bakht-Rofheart, Maryam, 2004. Not so elite anymore: shifting ideologies and language choice in a Long Island friendship cohort. Paper presented at Third international gender and language association conference, Cornell University, New York.

Balaban, Noga, in progress. Linguistic implications of acquired damage to ‘Theory of Mind’ (in Hebrew). Ph.D. Dissertation, Tel Aviv University.

Ball, Catherine N. and Ariel, Mira, 1978. Or something, etc. Penn Review of Linguistics 3: 35–45.Google Scholar

Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua, 1970. Aspects of Language: Essays and Lectures on Philosophy of Language, Linguistic Philosophy and Methodology of Linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua, 1971. Out of the pragmatic wastebasket. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 401–407.Google Scholar

Bard, Ellen Gurman, 1993. Restrictions on modularity: does ‘would’ prime ‘timber’? Talk given at The Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania, 3.5.1993.

Bard, Ellen Gurman, Robertson, Dan and Sorace, Antonella, 1996. Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72: 32–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bard, Ellen Gurman, Anderson, Anne H., Sotillo, Catherine, Aylett, Mattew, Doherty-Sneddon, Gwyneth and Newlands, Alison, 2000. Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 42: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barker, Stephen, 2003. Truth and conventional implicature. Mind 112: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barlow, Michael, 1992. A Situated Theory of Agreement (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics). New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Bartsch, Renate, 1979. Semantical and pragmatical correctness as basic notions of the theory of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 3: 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bates, Elizabeth, Thal, Donna, Finlay, Barbara and Clancy, Barbara, 2003. Early language development and its neural correlates. In Rapin, I. and Segalowitz, S., eds., Handbook of Neuropsychology, vol. VIII: Child neurology (2nd edition). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 109–176.Google Scholar

Beeman, Mark, Friedman, Rhonda B., Grafman, Jordan, Perez, Enrique, Diamond, Sherri and Lindsay, Miriam Beadle, 1994. Summation priming and coarse semantic coding in the right hemisphere. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 6: 26–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bencini, Giulia M. L. and Goldberg, Adele E., 2000. The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language 43: 640–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bever, Tom G., 1970. The influence of speech performance on linguistic structure. In Willem, J.Levelt, M. and Flores d'Arcais, Giovanni B., eds., Advances in Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 21–50.Google Scholar

Bezuidenhout, Anne, 2004. Procedural meaning and the semantics/pragmatics interface. In Claudia Bianchi, ed., The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford: CSLI, 101–131.Google Scholar

Birner, Betty J., 1994. Information status and word order: an analysis of English inversion. Language 70: 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Birner, Betty J. and Ward, Gregory L., 1998. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blakemore, Diane, 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Blakemore, Diane, 1992. Understanding Utterances (Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics 6). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Blakemore, Diane, 1995. Relevance theory. In Verschueren, Jef, Östman, Jan-Ola, Blommaert, Jan and Bulcaen, Chris, eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 443–452.Google Scholar

Blakemore, Diane, 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blakemore, Diane and Carston, Robyn, 2005. The pragmatics of sentential coordination with and. Lingua 115: 569–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bloomfield, Leonard, 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane and Kasper, Gabriele eds., 1989. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Blumstein, Sheila E., 1988. Neurolinguistics: an overview of language-brain relations in aphasia. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Robins, R. H., eds., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. III: Language: Psychological and biological aspects. Cambridge University Press, 210–236.Google Scholar

Bock, Kathryn J., 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18: 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bod, Rens, 1998. Beyond Grammar: An Experience-Based Theory of Language (CSLI Lecture Notes 88). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Bod, Rens, 2005. Exemplar-based syntax. Paper presented at the 2005 LSA meeting, Oakland, USA.

Bolinger, Dwight L., 1986. Intonation and its Parts: Melody in Spoken English. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight L., 1989. Intonation and its Uses: Melody in Grammar and Discourse. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Borg, Emma, 2004. Minimal Semantics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borochovsky Bar-Aba, Esther, 2003. Punctuation marks: procedural and conceptual uses. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1031–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bowe, Heather J., 1990. Categories, Constituents, and Constituent Order in Pitjantjatjara: An Aboriginal Language of Australia. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, 2006. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. Paper presented at International Conference on Linguistic Evidence, Tuebingen.

Bresnan, Joan and Hay, Jennifer, 2008. Gradient grammar: an effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118: 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana and Baayen, R. Harald, 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Boume, Gerlof, Krämer, Irene and Zwarts, Joost, eds., Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, 69–94.Google Scholar

Brockway, Diane, 1981. Semantic constraints on relevance. In Parret, Herman, Sbisà, Marina and Verschueren, Jef, eds., Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics (Studies in Language Companion Series 7). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 57–78.Google Scholar

Brown, Gillian and Yule, George, 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, Penelope, 1995. Politeness strategies and the attribution of intentions: the case of Tzeltal irony. In Goody, Esther N., ed., Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge University Press, 153–174.Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C., 1978. Universals of language usage: politeness phenomena. In Goody, Esther N., ed., Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge University Press, 56–311.Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C., 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brownell, Hiram H., Carroll, John J., Rehak, Alexandra and Wingfield, Arthur, 1992. The use of pronoun anaphora and speaker mood in the interpretation of conversational utterances by right hemisphere brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language 43: 121–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bucholtz, Mary and Hall, Kira, 2005. Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7: 585–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burton-Roberts, Noel, 1987. Pragmatics and Wittgenstein: ostensive and non-descriptive definition. In Verschueren, Jef and Bertuccelli-Papi, Marcella, eds., The Pragmatic Perspective (Pragmatics and Beyond Companion Series 5). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 733–753.Google Scholar

Burton-Roberts, Noel, 1999. Presupposition-cancellation and metalinguistic negation: a reply to Carston. Journal of Linguistics 35: 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., 2001. Phonology and Language Use (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 94). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: the role of repetition. In Janda, Richard D. and Joseph, Brian D., eds., Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 602–623.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul J., eds., 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure (Typological Studies in Language 45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D. and Pagliuca, William, 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Cameron, Deborah, 1985. Feminism and Linguistic Theory. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cameron, Deborah, McAlinden, Fiona and Kathy, O' Leary, , 1989. Lakoff in context: the social and linguistic functions of tag questions. In Coates, Jennifer and Cameron, Deborah, eds., Women in their Speech Communities. London: Longman, 74–93.Google Scholar

Cappelen, Herman and Lepore, Ernest, 2005. Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf, 1938. Foundations of logic and mathematics. In Neurath, Otto, Carnap, Rudolf and Morris, Charles W., eds., International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. University of Chicago Press, 139–214.Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn, 1988. Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In Ruth M. Kempson, ed., Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge University Press, 155–181. (Reprinted in Kasher, 1998b, vol. IV, 436–464).Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn, 1990. Quantity maxims and generalised implicature. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 1–31. (Reprinted in Lingua 96: 213–244).Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn, 1999a. The semantics/pragmatics distinction: a view from relevance theory. In Ken Turner, ed., The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View. Oxford: Elsevier, 85–125.Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn, 1999b. Negation, ‘presupposition’ and metarepresentation: a response to Noel Burton-Roberts. Journal of Linguistics 35: 365–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carston, Robyn, 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carston, Robyn, 2008. Linguistic communication and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Synthese 165: 321–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chafe, Wallace L., 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Charles N. Li, ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 25–55.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace L., 1979. The flow of thought and the flow of language. In Talmy Givón, ed., Syntax and Semantics, vol. XII: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press, 159–181.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace L., 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Russell S. Tomlin, ed., Coherence and Grounding in Discourse (Typological Studies in Language 11). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21–51.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace L., 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Consciousness Experience in Speaking and Writing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Chiarello, Christine, ed., 1988. RightHemisphere Contributions to Lexical Semantics. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.CrossRef

Chierchia, Gennaro, 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Adriana Belletti, ed., Structures and Beyond. New York: Oxford University Press, 39–103.Google Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro and McConnell-Ginet, Sally, 1990. Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam, 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam, 1975. Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam, 1979. Language and Responsibility. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam, 1980. Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam, 2000. New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chun, Elaine W., 2001. The construction of white, black and Korean American identities through African American Vernacular English. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11: 52–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clancy, Patricia M. and Downing, Pamela A., 1987. The use of wa as a cohesion marker in Japanese oral narratives. In Hinds, John, Iwasaki, Shoichi and Maynard, Senko K., eds., Perspectives on Topicalization: The Case of Japanese wa (Typological Studies in Language 14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3–56.Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H., 1996. Using Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, Jonathan L., 1971. Some remarks on Grice's view about the logical particles of natural language. In Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, ed., Pragmatics of Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Reidel, 50–68.Google Scholar

Cohen, Jonathan L., 1974. Speech acts. In Thomas A. Sebeok, ed., Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. XII: Linguistics and Adjacent Arts and Sciences. The Hague: Mouton, 173–210.Google Scholar

Cole, Peter, 1975. The synchronic and diachronic status of the conversational implicature. In Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 257–288.Google Scholar

Cole, Peter ed., 1978. Syntax and Semantics, vol. IX: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Cole, Peter ed., 1981. Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L. eds., 1975. Syntax and Semantics, vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.

Cole, Peter, Harbert, Wayne, Hermon, Gabriella and Sridhar, S. N., 1980. The acquisition of subjecthood. Language 56: 719–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Collins, Peter C., 1994. Cleft and Pseudocleft Constructions in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard, 1994. Coreference: between grammar and discourse. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the Kansai Linguistic Society (1993), 1–10.

Cooper, William E. and Ross, John Robert, 1975. World order. In Grossman, Robin E., San, L. James and Vance, Timothy J., eds., Chicago Linguistic Society: Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism. Chicago Linguistic Society, 63–111.Google Scholar

Cooreman, Ann, 1992. The pragmatics of word order variation in Chamorro narrative text. In Doris L. Payne, ed., Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 243–264.Google Scholar

Corum, Claudia, 1975. Basques, particles and baby talk: a case for pragmatics. Paper presented at Berkeley Linguistics Society.

Coulson, Seana and Federmeier, Kara D., 2003. Words in context: ERPs and the lexical/postlexical distinction. Unpublished ms., UC San Diego.

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, 2009. A sequential approach to affect: the case of ‘disappointment.’ In Haakana, Markku, Laakso, Minna and Lindström, Jan, eds., Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society (SKS), 94–123.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Selting, Margret, 1996. Towards an interactional perspective on prosody and prosodic perspective on interaction. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Selting, Margret, eds., Prosody in Conversation. Cambridge University Press, 11–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Thompson, Sandra A., 2005. A linguistic practice for retracting overstatements: concessive repair. In Hakulinen, Auli and Selting, Margret, eds., Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-In-Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 257–288.Google Scholar

Coupland, Nicholas, 1984. Accommodation at work: some phonological data and their implications. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 46: 49–70.Google Scholar

Cowles, H. Wind, Polinsky, Maria, Kutas, Marta and Kluender, Robert, 2005. On the nature of information structure violations: an ERP investigation. Paper delivered at the 2005 LSA Meeting, Oakland, USA.

Cruse, Alan, 2000. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cruse, Alan, 2004. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics (2nd edition). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cruttenden, Alan, 1997. Intonation (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Curtiss, Susan, 1988. Abnormal language acquisition and the modularity of language. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Robins, R. H., eds., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. II: Linguistic theory: Extensions and implications. Cambridge University Press, 96–116.Google Scholar

Cutica, Ilaria, Bucciarelli, Monica and Bara, Bruno G., 2006. Neuropragmatics: extralinguistic ability is better preserved in left-hemisphere-damaged patients than in right-hemisphere-damaged patients. Brain and Language 98: 12–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dąbrowska, Ewa, 2008. Questions with long-distance dependencies: a usage-based perspective. Cognitive Linguistics 19: 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dascal, Marcelo and Katriel, Tamar, 1977. Between semantics and pragmatics: the two types of ‘but’ – Hebrew ‘aval’ and ‘ela.’Theoretical Linguistics 4: 143–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davidson, Donald, 1967. Truth and meaning. Synthese 17: 304–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davidson, Donald, 1971. Truth and meaning. In Rosenberg, J. F. and Travis, Charles, eds., Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 450–465. (Reprinted from Synthese XVII: 3: 304–323).Google Scholar

Davis, Steven, 1987. The distinction between pragmatics and semantics. In Verschueren, Jef and Bertuccelli-Papi, Marcella, eds., The Pragmatic Perspective (Pragmatics and Beyond Companion Series 5). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 685–693.Google Scholar

Davis, Steven ed., 1991. Pragmatics: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Davis, Wayne A., 1998. Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Deutscher, Guy, 2005. The Unfolding of Language. London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger, 2008. Iconicity of sequence: a corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics 19: 465–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diewald, Gabriele, 2008. Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Paper presented at 4th International Conference “New Reflections on Grammaticalization,” Leuven, Belgium, July 17, 2008.

Dijk, Teun A., 1972. Some Aspects of Text Grammars (Janua Linguarum, Series Maior 63). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dillon, George L., Coleman, Linda, Fahnestock, Jeanne and Agar, Michael, 1985. Review article of Brown and Yule 1983, Leech 1983 and Levinson 1983. Language 61: 446–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dor, Daniel, 1995. Representations, attitudes and factivity evaluations: an epistemically-based analysis of lexical selection. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.

Dostie, Gaétane, 2004. Pragmaticalisation et marqeurs discursifs. Analyse sémantique et traitement lexicographique. Brussels: De Boeck, Ducolot.Google Scholar

Drew, Paul, 1992. Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: the case of a trial for rape. In Drew, Paul and Heritage, John, eds., Talk at Work. Cambridge University Press, 470–520.Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S., 2005. Definite articles. In Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew, Gil, David and Comrie, Bernard, eds., The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford University Press, 154–157.Google Scholar

Bois, Du, John, W., 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63: 805–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bois, Du, John, W., 2001. Stance: intersubjectivity and the pragmatic differential in dialogic interaction. Talk given at the Hebrew department colloquium, December 30 2001.

Bois, Du, John, W., 2003. Discourse and grammar. In Michael Tomasello, ed., The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, vol. II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 47–87.Google Scholar

Bois, Du, John, W., 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson, ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 139–182.Google Scholar

Bois, Du, John, W. in progress. The engaged stance: structure for social action. UC Santa Barbara.

Du Bois, John W., Cumming, Susanna, Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan and Paolino, Danae, 1992. Discourse transcription. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, vol. IV.

Du Bois, John W., Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan, Paolino, Danae and Cumming, Susanna, 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. In Edwards, Jane A. and Lampert, Martin D., eds., Talking Data: Transcription and Coding Methods for Language Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 45–89.Google Scholar

Ducrot, Oswald, Bourcier, Danièle, Bruxelles, Sylvie and Diller, Anne-Marie, 1980. Les mots du discours. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar

Duranti, Alessandro, 1992. Language in context and language as context: the Samoan respect vocabulary. In Duranti, Alessandro and Goodwin, Charles, eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 11). Cambridge University Press, 77–99.Google Scholar

Duranti, Alessandro and Goodwin, Charles, eds., 1992. Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 11). Cambridge University Press.

Eagleton, Terry, 1982. The Rape of Clarissa. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Emmorey, Karen D. and Fromkin, Victoria A., 1988. The mental lexicon. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Robins, R. H., eds., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. III: Language: Psychological and Biological Aspects. Cambridge University Press, 124–149.Google Scholar

England, Nora C., 2007. Marking aspect and mood and inferring time in Mam (Mayan). Paper presented at BLS, Berkeley.

Erman, Britt and Kostinas, Ulla-Britt, 1993. Pragmaticalization: the case of ba and you know. Studier i modern sprakvetenskap 10: 76–93.Google Scholar

Erteschik-Shir, Nomi, 2007. Information Structure: The Syntax–Discourse Interface. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Erteschik-Shir, Nomi and Lappin, Shalom, 1979. Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics 6: 41–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Faust, Miriam and Mashal, Nira, 2007. The role of the right cerebral hemisphere in processing novel metaphoric expressions taken from poetry: a divided visual field study. Neuropsychologia 45: 860–879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ferguson, Charles A. and Barlow, Michael, 1988. Introduction. In Barlow, Michael and Ferguson, Charles A., eds., Agreement in Natural Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1–22.Google Scholar

Fillenbaum, Samuel, 1986. The use of conditionals in inducements and deterrents. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, Meulen, Alice, Reilly, Judy Snitzer and Ferguson, Charles A., eds., On Conditionals. Cambridge University Press, 179–195.Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J., 1981. Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In Cole, Peter, ed., Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 143–166.Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J., 1996. The pragmatics of constructions. In Dan I. Slobin, ed., Social Interaction, Social Context, and Language: Essays in Honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 53–69.Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul and O'Connor, Mary Catherine, 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone. Language 64: 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Firbas, Jan, 1964. On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis. Travaux linguistiques de Prague 1: 267–280.Google Scholar

Firbas, Jan, 1971. On the concept of communicative dynamism in the theory of functional sentence perspective. In Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brnĕnské univerzity A 19, 135–144.Google Scholar

Fodor, Janet Dean, 1984. Constraints on gaps: is the parser a significant influence? In Butterworth, Brian, Comrie, Bernard and Dahl, Östen, eds., Explanations for Language Universals. Berlin: Mouton, 9–34.Google Scholar

Fodor, Jerry A., 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Foley, William A. and Robert D. Van Valin, Jr., 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Foley, William A. and Robert D. Van Valin, Jr., 1985. Information packaging in the clause. In Timothy Shopen, ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. I: Clause structure. Cambridge University Press, 282–364.Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E., 1993. Grammar in Interaction. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E. and Thompson, Sandra A., 1986. Conditionals in discourse: a text-based study from English. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, Ferguson, Charles A., Reilly, J. Snitzer and Meulen, A., eds., On Conditionals. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E. and Thompson, Sandra A., 1996. Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge University Press, 134–184.Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A. and Thompson, Sandra A., 2001. Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A. and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fox, Barbara A. and Jasperson, Robert, 1995. A syntactic exploration of repair in English conversation. In Davis, Philip W., ed., Alternative Linguistics: Descriptive and Theoretical Modes (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 77–134.Google Scholar

Fox, Barbara A., Hayashi, Makato and Jasperson, Robert, 1996. Resources and repair: a cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge University Press, 185–237.Google Scholar

Fox Tree, Jean E. and Clark, Herbert H., 1997. Pronouncing “the” as “thee” to signal problems in speaking. Cognition 62: 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frescura, Marina, 2006. Reacting to a context-specific reprimand: a study of an Italian speech community. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 2144–2157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fretheim, Thorstein, 2001. In defense of monosemy. In Enikö, Németh T. and Bibok, Károly, eds., Pragmatics and the Flexibility of Word Meaning. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 79–115.Google Scholar

Frey, Werner, 2004. A medial topic position for German. Linguistische Berichte 198: 153–190.Google Scholar

Friedmann, Naama, 2001. Verb movement in agrammatic comprehension and production. Linguistics Department Colloquium, November 1, 2001.

Fromkin, Victoria A., 1991. Language and brain: redefining the goals and methodology of linguistics. In Kasher, Asa, ed., The Chomskyan Turn. Oxford: Blackwell, 78–103.Google Scholar

Fuerst, Yael, 2004. When information is redundant-redundant: redundancy and cognitive status. Seminar paper, Tel Aviv University.

Gafter, Roey, 2008. Where they linger on: motivating the current distribution of plural feminine pronouns in Hebrew. Dept of Linguistics, Tel Aviv University.

Gamut, L. T. F., 1991. Logic, Language, and Meaning, vol. I: Introduction to Logic. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Gardner, Howard, Brownell, Hiram H., Wapner, Wendy and Michelow, Diane, 1983. Missing the point: the role of the right hemisphere in the processing of complex linguistic materials. In Perecman, Ellen, ed., Cognitive Processes in the Right Hemisphere. New York: Academic Press, 169–191.Google Scholar

Gazdar, Gerald, 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Geis, Michael L, 1984. On semantic and pragmatic competence. In Deborah Schiffrin, ed., Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 71–84.Google Scholar

Geis, Michael L. and Zwicky, Arnold M., 1971. On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 561–566.Google Scholar

Gernsbacher, Morton Ann, 1990. Language Comprehension as Structure Building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gernsbacher, Morton Ann, 1991. Comprehending conceptual anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes 6: 81–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr., 1994. The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Giles, Howard, 1973. Accent mobility: a model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics 15: 87–105.Google Scholar

Giles, Howard, Coupland, Justine and Coupland, Nicholas, 1991a. Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giles, Howard, Coupland, Nicholas and Coupland, Justine, 1991b. Accommodation theory: communication, context, and consequence. In Giles, Howard, Coupland, Justine and Coupland, Nicholas, eds., Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction). Cambridge University Press, 1–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giora, Rachel, 1985a. A text-based analysis of non-narrative texts. Theoretical Linguistics 12: 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giora, Rachel, 1985b. Notes towards a theory of text coherence. Poetics Today 6: 699–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giora, Rachel, 1997a. Discourse coherence and theory of relevance: stumbling blocks in search of a unified theory. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giora, Rachel, 1997b. Understanding figurative and literal language: the graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 8: 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giora, Rachel, 1998. Discourse coherence is an independent notion: a reply to Deirdre Wilson. Journal of Pragmatics 29: 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giora, Rachel, 1999. On the priority of salient meanings: studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 919–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giora, Rachel, 2003. On our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giora, Rachel, 2006. Anything negatives can do affirmatives can do just as well, except for some metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 981–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, Talmy, 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Charles N. Li, ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 149–188.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy, 1979a. On Understanding Grammar (Perspectives in Neurolinguistics and Psycholinguistics). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy, 1979b. Preface. In Talmy Givón, ed., Syntax and Semantics, vol. XII: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press, xiii–xx.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy ed., 1979c. Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy, 1984. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, Talmy, 1989. Mind, Code and Context. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy, 1991. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: cognitive and biological considerations. Studies in Language 15: 85–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Glucksberg, Sam and Keysar, Boaz, 1990. Understanding metaphorical comparisons: beyond similarity. Psychological Review 97: 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E., 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E., 1997. The relationship between verbs and constructions. In Verspoor, Marjolijn, Lee, Kee Dong and Sweetser, Eve, eds., Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning: Proceedings of the Bi-Annual ICLA Meeting in Albuquerque, July 1995. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 383–398.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E., 2004. Pragmatics and argument structure. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 427–441.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E., 2006. Constructions at Work. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. and Ackerman, Farrell, 2001. The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts. Language 77: 798–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodwin, Charles, 1979. The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In George Psathas, ed., Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, 97–121.Google Scholar

Gordon, David and Lakoff, George, 1971. Conversational postulates. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 7: 63–84. (Reprinted in Cole and Morgan, eds., 1975, 83–106).Google Scholar

Green, Georgia M., 1981. Pragmatics and syntactic description. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 11: 27–38.Google Scholar

Green, Georgia M., 1989. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Green, Georgia M., 2004. Some interactions of pragmatics and grammar. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, 407–426.Google Scholar

Green, Georgia M. and Morgan, Jerry L., 1981. Pragmatics, grammar and discourse. In Morgan, Jerry L. and Cole, Peter, eds., Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 167–181.Google Scholar

Grice, H. Paul, 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41–58.Google Scholar

Grice, H. Paul, 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th., 2003. Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Groenendijk, Jeroen A. G. and Stokhof, Martin J. B., 1978. Semantics, pragmatics and the theory of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 2: 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Groenendijk, Jeroen A. G. and Stokhof, Martin J. B., 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Ms. Amsterdam University.

Grundy, Peter, 1995. Doing Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Gumperz, John J., 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gundel, Jeanette K. and Fretheim, Thorstein, 2004. Topic and focus. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 175–196.Google Scholar

Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy and Zacharski, Ron, 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Günthner, Susanne and Mutz, Karin, 2004. Grammaticalization vs. pragmaticalization? The development of pragmatic markers in German and Italian. In Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. and Wiemer, Björn, eds., What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 77–107.Google Scholar

Gussenhoven, Carlos, 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haberland, Hartmut and Mey, Jacob L., 1977. Editorial: Linguistics and pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 1: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haiman, John, 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language 54: 564–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haiman, John, 1998. Talk is Cheap. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Haiman, John and Thompson, Sandra A., 1984. “Subordination” in universal grammar. In Brugman, Claudia and Macaulay, Monica, eds., Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 510–523.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K., 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K., 1978. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

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

Hankamer, Jorge and Sag, Ivan A., 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 391–428.Google Scholar

Harder, Peter, 1996. Functional Semantics: A Theory of Meaning, Structure, and Tense in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harnish, Robert M., 1976. Logical form and implicature. In Bever, Tom G., Katz, Jerrold J. and Langendoen, D. Terence, eds., An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Ability. New York: Crowell, 313–391.Google Scholar

Harnish, Robert M. and Farmer, Ann K., 1984. Pragmatics and the modularity of the linguistic system. Lingua 63: 255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin, 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael, 2007. The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 84–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hawkins, John A., 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 73). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hedberg, Nancy and Fadden, Lorna, 2007. The information structure of it-clefts, wh-clefts and reverse wh-clefts in English. In Hedberg, Nancy and Zacharski, Ron, eds., The Grammar-Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 49–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, Bernd, 1994. Grammaticalization as an explanatory parameter. In William Pagliuca, ed., Perspectives on Grammaticalization (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 255–287.Google Scholar

Heisterkamp, Brian L., 2006. Conversational displays of mediator neutrality in court-based program. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 2051–2064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Herrmann, Theo, 1983. Speech and Situation: A Psychological Conception of Situated Speaking. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hinds, John, 1979. Organizational patterns in discourse. In Givón, Talmy, ed., Syntax and Semantics, vol. XII: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press, 135–157.Google Scholar

Hooper, Joan B. and Thompson, Sandra A., 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 465–497.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J., 2001. Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: prototype or family resemblance? In Pütz, Martin, Niemeier, Suzanne and Dirven, Réne, eds., Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and Language Acquisition. Berlin: Mouton, 109–129.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra A., 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra A., 2001. Grammatical fragments and social action in conversation. Paper delivered at the 7th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. UC Santa Barbara, July 22–27, 2001.

Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, 1993/2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R., 1972. On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. Mimeo, Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Horn, Laurence R., 1978. Remarks on neg-raising. In Peter Cole, ed., Syntax and Semantics, vol. IX: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 129–220.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R., 1984. A new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicatures. In Deborah Schiffrin, ed., Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 11–42.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R., 1988. Pragmatic theory. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Robins, R. H., eds., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. I: Linguistic theory: Foundations. Cambridge University Press, 113–145.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R., 1989. A Natural History of Negation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R., 1991. Given as new: when redundant information isn't. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horn, Laurence R., 2000a. Pick a theory (not just any theory): indiscriminative and free-choice indefinite. In Horn, Laurence R. and Kato, Yasuhiko, eds., Negation and Polarity: Syntactic and Semantic Perspectives. Oxford University Press, 147–192.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R., 2000b. From if to iff: conditional perfection as pragmatic strengthening. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 289–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horn, Laurence R., 2002. Assertoric inertia and NPI licensing. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 2: The panels, 55–82.

Horn, Laurence R., 2004. Implicature. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 3–28.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R., 2006a. The Border Wars: a neo-Gricean perspective. In Turner, Ken and Heusinger, Klaus, eds., Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics. London: Elsevier, 21–48.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R., 2006b. More issues in neo- and post-Gricean pragmatics: a response to Robyn Carston's response. Intercultural Pragmatics 3: 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horn, Laurence R., 2007. Toward a Fregean pragmatics: Voraussetzung, Nebengedanke, Andeutung. In Kecskes, Istvan and Horn, Laurence R., eds., Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, 39–69.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R., 2008. On F-implicature: myth-analysis and rehabilitation. Paper presented at Linguistics and Philosophy Workshop, Ann Arbor, available at www.eecs.umich.edu/~rthomaso/lpw08/abstracts.html.

Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., 2004. Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hornstein, Norbert, 1986. Pragmatics and grammatical theory. In Farley, Anne M., Farley, Peter T. and McCullough, Karl-Erik, eds., Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory. Chicago Linguistic Society, 234–247.Google Scholar

House, Jill, 2006. Constructing a context with intonation. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1542–1558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huang, Yan, 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan and Sinclair, John M., 2000. A local grammar of evaluation. In Hunston, Susan and Sinclair, John M., eds., Evaluation in Text. Oxford University Press, 74–101.Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. and Comrie, Bernard, 1981. Logophoric reference in Gokana. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 3: 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Israel, Michael, 2000. Some and the pragmatics of indefinite construal. In Chang, Steve S., Liaw, Lily and Ruppenhofer, Josef, eds., Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 169–182.Google Scholar

Israel, Michael, 2002. Literally speaking. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 423–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Iwasaki, Shoichi and Tao, Hongyin, 1993. A comparative study of the structure of the intonation unit in English, Japanese, and Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at The 67th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Los Angeles, CA.

Izre'el, Shlomo, 2002. A corpus of Spoken Israeli Hebrew (CoSIH): text examples. Leshonenu 64: 289–314 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray, 2008. Construction after construction and its theoretical challenges. Language 84: 8–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jaeger, Jeri J., Lockwood, Alan H., Kemmerer, David L., Valin, Robert D., Jr., Murphy, Brian W. and Khalak, Hanif G., 1996. A positron emission tomographic study of regular and irregular verb morphology in English. Language 72: 451–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jefferson, Gail, 1983. “Conjunctionals” as overlap vulnerable. Two explorations of the organization of overlapping talk in conversation. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 28: 1–33.Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. and Ziv, Yael, eds., 1998. Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Jung-Beeman, Mark, Bowden, Edward M. and Gernsbacher, Morton Ann, 2000. Right and left hemisphere cooperation for drawing predictive and coherence inferences during normal story comprehension. Brain and Language 71: 310–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kadmon, Nirit, 2001. Formal Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Kadmon, Nirit, 2009. Some theories of the interpretation of accent placement. Unpublished ms., Tel Aviv University.

Kamp, Hans, 1979. Semantics versus pragmatics. In Guenthner, Franz and Schmidt, S. J., eds., Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages (Synthese Language Library 4). Dordrecht: Reidel, 255–287.Google Scholar

Kamp, Hans, 2001. Presupposition computation and presupposition justification: one aspect of the interpretation of multi-sentence discourse. In Bras, Myriam and Vieu, Laure, eds., Semantics and Pragmatic Issues in Discourse and Dialogue: Experimenting with Current Dynamic Theories. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 57–84.Google Scholar

Kamp, Hans and Reyle, Uwe, 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Kaplan, David, 1977/1989. Demonstratives. In Almog, Joseph, Wettstein, Howard K. and Perry, John, eds., Themes from Kaplan. New York: Oxford University Press, 481–563.Google Scholar

Karmiloff-Smith, Annette, 1991. Beyond modularity: innate constraints and developmental change. In Carey, Susan and Gelman, Rochel, eds., The Epigenesis of Mind: Essays on Biology and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 171–197.Google Scholar

Karttunen, Lauri, 1973. Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 169–193.Google Scholar

Karttunen, Lauri, 1974. On the pragmatic and semantic aspects of meaning. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Philosophy Colloquium.

Karttunen, Lauri and Peters, Stanley, 1979. Conventional implicature. In Oh, Choon-Kyu and Dinneen, David A., eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. XI: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press, 1–56.Google Scholar

Kasher, Asa, 1974. Mood imp's: a logical way of doing generative pragmatics. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 6–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kasher, Asa, 1977. What is a theory of use?Journal of Pragmatics 1: 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kasher, Asa, 1979. Logical rationalism and formal semantics of natural languages: On conditions of adequacy. In Heny, Frank and Schnelle, Helmut, eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. X: Selections from the third Groningen round table. New York: Academic Press, 257–273.Google Scholar

Kasher, Asa, 1982. Gricean inference revisited. Philosophica 29: 25–44.Google Scholar

Kasher, Asa, 1991a. Pragmatics and the modularity of mind. In Steven Davis, ed., Pragmatics: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press, 567–582.Google Scholar

Kasher, Asa, 1991b. Pragmatics and Chomsky's research program. In Asa Kasher, ed., The Chomskyan Turn. Cambridge: Blackwell, 122–149.Google Scholar

Kasher, Asa, 1994. Rationality and pragmatics. In Asher, R. E. and Simpson, J. M. Y., eds., The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. VI. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 3280–3282.Google Scholar

Kasher, Asa, 1998a. Pragmatics, modular. In Jacob L. Mey, ed., Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 738–739.Google Scholar

Kasher, Asa ed., 1998b. Pragmatics: Critical Concepts (6 volumes). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kasher, Asa, Batori, Gila, Soroker, Nachum, Graves, David and Zaidel, Eran, 1999. Effects of right- and left-hemisphere damage on understanding conversational implicatures. Brain and Language 68: 566–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Katriel, Tamar, 2004. Dialogic Moments. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar

Katz, Jerrold J., 1977. Propositional Structure and Illocutionary Force: A Study of the Contribution of Sentence Meaning to Speech Acts. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.Google Scholar

Kay, Paul, 1983. Linguistic competence and folk theories of language: two English hedges. In Dahlstrom, Amy, Brugman, Claudia, Macaulay, Monica, Civkulis, Inese, Emanatian, Michele, Sakima, Donna and Teixeira, Raquel, eds., Proceedings of the 9th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 128–137.Google Scholar

Kay, Paul, 2004. Pragmatic aspects of grammatical constructions. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, 675–700.Google Scholar

Keenan, Edward L., 1996. Creating anaphors: an historical study of the English reflexive pronouns. Unpublished ms., UCLA.Google Scholar

Keller, Rudi, 1995. The epistemic weil. In Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan, eds., Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, 16–30.Google Scholar

Kemmer, Suzanne and Shyldkrot, Hava Bat-Zeev, 1995. The semantics of “empty prepositions” in French. In Eugene H. Cassad, ed., Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 347–388.Google Scholar

Kempson, Ruth M., 1975. Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 15). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kempson, Ruth M., 1977. Semantic Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kempson, Ruth M., 1984. Weak crossover, logical form and pragmatics. Paper presented at GLOW, April 1984.

Kempson, Ruth M., 1986. Ambiguity and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. In Charles Travis, ed., Meaning and Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell, 77–103.Google Scholar

Kempson, Ruth M., 1988. Grammar and conversational principles. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Robins, R. H., eds., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. II: Linguistic Theory: Extensions and Implications. Cambridge University Press, 139–163.Google Scholar

Kempson, Ruth M., 2000. Pragmatics: language and communication. In Aronoff, Mark and Rees-Miller, Janie, eds., The Handbook of Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 394–427.Google Scholar

Kempson, Ruth M., Cann, Ronnie and Purver, Matthew, to appear. Talking and listening: dialogue and the grammar–pragmatics interface. In Hackl, Martin and Thornton, Robert, eds., Asserting, Meaning and Implying. Oxford University Press.

Kiefer, Ferenc, 1978. Review of Jens Allwood's Linguistic Communication as Action and Cooperation: A Study in Pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 2: 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kim, Heesoo, 2008. The semantic and pragmatic analysis of South Korean and Australian English apologetic speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klein-Andreu, Flora, 1983. Preface. In Flora Klein-Andreu, ed., Discourse Perspectives on Syntax. New York: Academic Press, xv–xvii.Google Scholar

Kopytko, Roman, 2001. From Cartesian towards non-Cartesian pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 783–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koriat, Asher and Greenberg, Seth N., 1996. The enhancement effect in letter detection: further evidence for the structural model of reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology 22: 1184–1195.Google Scholar

Kotek, Hadas, 2009. Taking Hebrew into account. Ms., Tel Aviv University.

Krámský, Jirí, 1972. The Article and the Concept of Definiteness in Language (Janua Linguarum, Series Minor 125). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kügler, Frank, Skopeteas, Stavros and Verhoeven, Elisabeth, 2007. Encoding information structure in Yucatec Maya: on the interplay of prosody and syntax. Working Papers of the Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS)SFB 632 8: 187–208.Google Scholar

Kuno, Susumu, 1971. The position of locatives in existential sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 333–378.Google Scholar

Kuno, Susumu, 1972. Functional sentence perspective: a case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 269–320.Google Scholar

Kuno, Susumu, 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kuno, Susumu, 1975. Three perspectives in the functional approach to syntax. In Grossman, Robin E., San, L. James and Vance, Timothy J., eds., Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism (1st edition). Chicago Linguistic Society, 276–336.Google Scholar

Kuno, Susumu, 1976. Subject, theme, and the speaker's empathy: a reexamination of relativization phenomena. In Charles N. Li, ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 417–444.Google Scholar

Kuno, Susumu, 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Kutas, Marta and Hillyard, S. A., 1980. Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words. Biological Psychology 11: 99–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kuzar, Ron, 2006. Prototype-based semantics of existential constructions. Ms., Haifa University.

Kuzar, Ron, 2009. Sentence patterns in English and Hebrew. Unpublished ms., Haifa University.

Labov, William, 1972. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular (Conduct and Communication 3). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Labov, William, 1973. The boundaries of words and their meanings. In Bailey, Charles-James N. and Shuy, Roger W., eds., New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 340–373.Google Scholar

Ladd, D. Robert, 1990. Intonation: emotion vs. grammar. Language 66: 806–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ladusaw, William A., 1988. Semantic theory. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Robins, R. H., eds., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. I: Linguistic theory: Foundations. Cambridge University Press, 89–112.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George, 1973a. Fuzzy grammar and the performance/competence terminology game. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 9, 271–291.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George, 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark, 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, Robin, 1973b. The logic of politeness; or, minding your P's and Q's. In Claudia Corum, T. Cedric Smith-Stark and Ann Weiser, eds., Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, 292–305.

Lambrecht, Knud, 1980. Topic, French style. Remarks about a basic sentence type of modern non-standard French. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 337–360.Google Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud, 1986. Pragmatically motivated syntax: presentational cleft constructions in spoken French. In Proceedings of the Twenty-second Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory. Chicago Linguistic Society, 115–126.Google Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud, 1990. “What, me worry” – Mad magazine sentences revisited. In Hall, Kira, Koenig, Jean-Pierre, Meacham, Michael, Reinman, Sondra and Sutton, Laurel A., eds., Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 215–228.Google Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud, 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landau, Barbara and Gleitman, Lila R., 1985. Language and Experience: Evidence from the Blind Child. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Landman, Fred, 2000. Events and Plurality. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W., 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W., 1988. A usage-based model. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, ed., Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 127–161.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W., 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W., 1997. The contextual basis of cognitive semantics. In Nuyts, Jan and Pederson, Eric, eds., Language and Conceptualization (Language, Culture and Cognition 1). Cambridge University Press, 229–252.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard, 1989. Essays on Anaphora (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Latraverse, François and Leblanc, Suzanne, 1980. On the delimitation of semantics and the characterization of meaning: some remarks. In Parret, Herman, Sbisa, Marina and Verschueren, Jef, eds., Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 399–411.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey N., 1980. Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics (Pragmatics and Beyond 5). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey N., 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Leonard, Carol L., Waters, Gloria S. and Caplan, David, 1997. The use of contextual information related to general world knowledge by right brain-damaged individuals in pronoun resolution. Brain and Language 57: 343–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Levelt, Willem J. M., 1993. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Levin, Beth and Rapoport, Tova R., 1988. Lexical subordination. In MacLeod, Lynne, Larson, Gary and Brentari, Diane, eds., Papers from the 24th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, 275–289.Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C., 1979. Pragmatics and social deixis: reclaiming the notion of conventional implicature. Paper presented at Berkeley Linguistics Society.

Levinson, Stephen C., 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C., 1987. Minimization and conversational inference. In Verschueren, Jef and Bertuccelli-Papi, Marcella, eds., The Pragmatic Perspective (Pragmatics and Beyond Companion Series 5). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 61–129.Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C., 1991. Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27: 107–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C., 1995. Three levels of meaning. In Frank R. Palmer, ed., Grammar and Meaning. Cambridge University Press, 90–115.Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C., 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, David K., 1972. General semantics. In Davidson, Donald and Harman, Gilbert, eds., Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, 169–218.Google Scholar

Li, Charles N., 1976. Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A., 1976. Subject and topic: a new typology of language. In Charles N. Li, ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 457–489.Google Scholar

Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson, 1981/1989. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Liberman, Mark, 1973. Alternatives. In Chicago Linguistic Society 9. Chicago Linguistic Society, 346–355.Google Scholar

Liberman, Mark and Sag, Ivan, 1974. Prosodic form and discourse function. In Papers from the 10th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 416–427.

Linzen, Tal, 2009. Hebrew possessive datives: corpus evidence for the role of affectedness. M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University.

Local, John and Kelly, John, 1986. Projection and ‘silences’: notes on phonetic and conversational structure. Human Studies 9: 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Longacre, Robert E., 1976. ‘Mystery’ particles and affixes. In Mufwene, Salikoko S., Walker, Carol A. and Steever, Sanford B., eds., Papers from the Twelfth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, 468–477.Google Scholar

Longacre, Robert E., 1979. The paragraph as a grammatical unit. In Talmy Givón, ed., Syntax and Semantics, vol. XII: Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 115–134.Google Scholar

Lycan, William G., 1991. Even and even if. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 115–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lyons, John, 1977. Semantics (2 volumes). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lyons, John, 1995. Grammar and meaning. In Frank R. Palmer, ed., Grammar and Meaning. Cambridge University Press, 221–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Macmillan, , 2002. Macmillan's English Dictionary for Advanced Learners 2002. Oxford: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Mann, William C. and Thompson, Sandra A., 1986. Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes 9: 57–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mann, William C. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8: 243–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martin, Larry W., Bradac, James J. and Elliott, Norman D., 1977. On the empirical basis of linguistics: a multivariate analysis of sentence judgments. In Beach, Woodford A., Fox, Samuel E. and Philosoph, Shulamith, eds., Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, 357–371.Google Scholar

Maschler, Yael, 2001. Veke'ilu haragláyim sh'xa nitkao'ot bifnim kaze (‘and like your feet get stuck inside like’): Hebrew kaze (‘like’), ke'ilu (‘like’), and the decline of Israeli dugri (‘direct’) speech. Discourse Studies 3: 295–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mashal, Nira and Faust, Miriam, 2008. Conventionalization of novel metaphors: a shift in hemispheric asymmetry. Ms., Bar-Ilan University.

Mashal, Nira, Faust, Miriam, Hendler, Talma and Jung-Beeman, Mark, 2008. Hemispheric differences in processing the literal interpretation of idioms: converging evidence from behavioral and fMRI studies. Cortex 44: 848–860.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Matthews, Peter, 1995. Syntax, semantics, pragmatics. In Frank R. Palmer, ed., Grammar and Meaning. Cambridge University Press, 48–60.Google Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian and Thompson, Sandra A., 1988. The structure of discourse and subordination. In Haiman, John and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 275–329.Google Scholar

McCawley, James D., 1998. The Syntactic Phenomena of English. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

McCawley, James D., 1999. Why surface syntactic structure reflects logical structure as much as it does, but only that much. Language 75: 34–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McConnell-Ginet, Sally, 1998. Why do middles need modifiers? Adverbials reconsidered. Lecture given at Bar Ilan University, Israel, June 1998.

McCrone, John, 1999. States of mind. New Scientist 2178 (20 March): 30–33.Google Scholar

Merkl, Peter H., 2001. A Coup Attempt in Washington?New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar

Mey, Jacob L., 1979. Preface. In Jacob L. Mey, ed., Pragmalinguistics: Theory and Practice. The Hague: Mouton, 5–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mey, Jacob L., 1993. Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Mey, Jacob L., 1998a. Pragmatics. In Jacob L. Mey, ed., Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 716–737.Google Scholar

Mey, Jacob L. ed., 1998b. Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Michaelis, Laura A. and Lambrecht, Knud, 1994. On nominal extraposition: a constructional analysis. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 362–373.Google Scholar

Mithun, Marianne, 1987. Is basic word order universal? In Russell S. Tomlin, ed., Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 281–328.Google Scholar

Mithun, Marianne, 2008. The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 84: 69–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Montgomery, Michael, 1989. Choosing between that and it. In Fasold, Ralph W. and Schiffrin, Deborah, eds., Language Change and Variation (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 241–254.Google Scholar

Moravcsik, Julius M., 1990. Thought and Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Morgan, Jerry L., 1978. Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Peter Cole, ed., Syntax and Semantics, vol. IX: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 261–280.Google Scholar

Morris, Charles W., 1938. Foundations of the theory of signs. In Neurath, Otto, Carnap, Rudolf and Morris, Charles W., eds., International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. University of Chicago Press, 77–138.Google Scholar

Mulder, Jean and Thompson, Sandra A., 2008. The grammaticization of but as a final particle in English conversation. In Ritva Laury, ed., Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 179–204.Google Scholar

Naden, Anthony, 1986. Social context and Mampruli greetings. In Huttar, George and Gregerson, Kenneth, eds., Pragmatics in non-Western Perspective (Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics 73). Arlington, Tex.: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 161–199.Google Scholar

Nemo, François, 1999. The pragmatics of signs, the semantics of relevance, and the semantics/pragmatics interface. In Ken Turner, ed., The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View. Oxford: Elsevier, 343–417.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, Frederick J., 1983. Grammatical Theory. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, Frederick J., 1991. Iconicity and generative grammar. Language 68: 756–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newmeyer, Frederick J., 2000. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Noordman, Leo G. M. and Blijzer, Femke, 2000. On the processing of causal relations. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Kortmann, Bernd, eds., Cause-Condition-Concession-Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 35–56.Google Scholar

Norrick, Neal R., 1987. Functions of repetitions in conversation. Text 7: 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Noveck, Ira A., 2001. When children are more logical than adults: experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78: 165–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nunberg, Geoffrey D., 1981. Validating pragmatic explanations. In Peter Cole, ed., Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 199–222.Google Scholar

Nunberg, Geoffrey D., 1993. Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nureddeen, Abdurahman Fatima, 2008. Cross cultural pragmatics: apology strategies in Sudanese Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 279–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nuyts, Jan, 1992. Aspects of a Cognitive-pragmatic Theory of Language: On Cognition, Functionalism, and Grammar (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ochs, Elinor, 1992. Indexing gender. In Duranti, Alessandro and Goodwin, Charles, eds., Rethinking Context. Cambridge University Press, 336–358.Google Scholar

Ochs Keenan, Elinor and Schieffelin, Bambi B., 1976. Topic as a discourse notion: a study of topic in the conversations of children and adults. In Charles N. Li, ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 335–384.Google Scholar

Õim, Haldur, 1977. Towards a theory of linguistic pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 1: 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Olshtain, Elite, 1989. Apologies cross languages. In Blumstein, Sheila E., House, Juliane and Kasper, Gabriele, eds., Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 155–173.Google Scholar

Ono, Tsuyoshi and Thompson, Sandra A., 1996. Interaction and syntax in the structure of conversational discourse: collaboration, overlap, and syntactic dissociation. In Hovy, Edward H. and Scott, Donia R., eds., Computational and Conversational Discourse: Burning Issues – An Interdisciplinary Account (NATO ASI Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences 151). Berlin: Springer, 67–96.Google Scholar

Osterhout, Lee and Holcomb, Phillip J., 1992. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 31: 785–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Osterhout, Lee, Bersick, Michael and McLaughlin, Judith, 1997. Brain potentials reflect violations of gender stereotypes. Memory and Cognition 25: 273–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Oswalt, Robert L., 1983. Interclausal reference in Kashaya. In Haiman, John and Munro, Pamela, eds., Switch-reference and Universal Grammar (Typological Studies in Language 2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 267–290.Google Scholar

Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Thornburg, Linda L., 2009. From syntactic coordination to conceptual modification: the case of nice and Adj construction. Constructions and Frames 1: 56–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parret, Herman, Sbisà, Marina and Verschueren, Jef, eds., 1981. Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics (Studies in Language Companion Series 7). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Pawley, Andrew and Snyder, Frances H., 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, Jack C. and Schmidt, Richard W., eds., Language and Communication. London: Longman, 191–225.Google Scholar

Payne, Doris L., 1987. Information structuring in Papago narrative. Language 63: 783–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Payne, Doris L., 1992. Nonidentifiable information and pragmatic order rules in ‘O'odham. In Doris L Payne, ed., Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 137–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peleg, Orna, Giora, Rachel and Fein, Ofer, 2004. Contextual strength: the whens and hows of context effects. In Noveck, Ira A and Sperber, Dan, eds., Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Peregrin, Jaroslav, 1999. The pragmatization of semantics. In Turner, Ken, ed., The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View. Oxford: Elsevier, 419–442.Google Scholar

Peters, Pamela, 1995. The Pocket Macquarie Writers' Guide. Milton, Queensland: The Jacaranda Press.Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, Janet B. and Hirschberg, Julia Bell, 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, Philip R., Morgan, Jerry L. and Pollack, Martha E., eds., Intentions in Communication (System Development Foundation Benchmark Series). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 271–311.Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven, 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Portner, Paul, 2006. Meaning. In Fasold, Ralph W. and Connor-Linton, Jeff, eds., An Introduction to Language and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, 137–168.Google Scholar

Potts, Christopher, 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Prince, Ellen F., 1976. The syntax and semantics of Neg-Raising, with evidence from French. Language 52: 404–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prince, Ellen F., 1978a. A comparison of WH-clefts and IT-clefts in discourse. Language 54: 883–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prince, Ellen F., 1978b. On the function of existential presupposition in discourse. In Chicago Linguistic Society 14. Chicago Linguistic Society, 362–376.Google Scholar

Prince, Ellen F., 1981. On the inferencing of indefinite this NPs. In Joshi, Aravind K., Webber, Bonnie L. and Sag, Ivan A., eds., Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge University Press, 231–250.Google Scholar

Prince, Ellen F., 1988. Discourse analysis: a part of the study of linguistic competence. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Robins, R. H., eds., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. II: Linguistic Theory: Extensions and Implications. Cambridge University Press, 164–182.Google Scholar

Prince, Ellen F., 1990. Syntax and discourse: a look at resumptive pronouns. In Hall, Kira, Koenig, Jean-Pierre, Meacham, Michael, Reinman, Sondra and Sutton, Laurel A., eds., Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 482–497.Google Scholar

Prince, Ellen F., 1998. On the limits of syntax, with reference to left-dislocation and topicalization. In Culicover, Peter W. and McNally, Louise, eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. IXXX: The Limits of Syntax. San Diego: Academic Press, 281–302.Google Scholar

Prince, Ellen F., 2006. Impersonal pronouns in French and Yiddish: semantic reference vs. discourse reference. In Birner, Betty J. and Ward, Gregory L., eds., Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R Horn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 295–315.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey N. and Svartvik, Jan, 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Raichle, Marcus E., 1998. The neural correlates of consciousness: an analysis of cognitive skill learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B series 353: 1889–1901.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Recanati, François, 1987. Meaning and Force. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Recanati, François, 1989. The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language 4: 295–328. (Reprinted in Davis 1991, 97–120).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recanati, François, 1993. Direct Reference. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Recanati, François, 1995. The alleged priority of literal interpretation. Cognitive Science 19: 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar