Abels, Klaus. 2004. “Why surprise-predicates do not embed polar interrogatives.” Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 81 : 203–222.Google Scholar

Abney, Steven. 1987. “The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect.” Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Aboh, Enoch. 2016. “Information structure: A cartographic perspective.” In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, edited by Féry, Caroline and Ishihari, Shinichiro, 147–164. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Allan, Keith. 2006. “Clause-type, primary illocution, and mood-like operators in English.” Language Sciences 28: 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allwood, Jens, Nivre, Joakim, and Ahlsén, Elisabeth. 1992. “On the semantics and pragmatics of linguistic feedback.” Journal of Semantics 9(1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aloni, Maria, and Ciardelli, Ivano. 2013. “A logical account of free choice imperatives.” In The Dynamic, Inquisitive, and Visionary Life of φ, ?φ, and ◊φ: A Festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman, edited by Aloni, Maria, Frank, Michael, and Roelofsen, Floris, 1–17. Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar

Ambar, Manuela. 1999. “Aspects of focus in Portuguese.” In The Grammar of Focus, edited by Tuller, Laurie and Rebuschi, George, 23–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Anand, Pranav. 2006. “De De Se.” Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Anand, Pranav, Grimshaw, Jane, and Hacquard, Valentine. 2019. “Sentence embedding predicates, factivity and subjects.” In Tokens of Meaning: Papers in Honor of Lauri Karttunen, edited by Condoravdi, Cleo and Holloway King, Tracy, 279–308. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, CSLI.Google Scholar

Anand, Pranav, and Nevins, Andrew. 2004. “Shifty operators in changing contexts.” Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14: 20–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 1971. On the Linguistic Status of the Performative/Constative Distinction. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Arndt, Horst, and Janney, Richard W.. 1991. “Verbal, prosodic, and kinesic emotive contrasts in speech.” Journal of Pragmatics 15(6): 521–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asher, Nicholas, and Lascarides, Alex. 1998. “Questions in dialogue.” Linguistics and Philosophy 21(3): 237–309.Google Scholar

Asher, Nicholas, and Lascarides, Alex. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Auer, Peter. 1996. “On the prosody and syntax of turn-taking.” In Prosody and Conversation, edited by Couper-Kuhlen, Elisabeth and Selting, Margret, 57–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Auer, Peter. 2007. “Syntax als Prozess.” In Gespräch als Prozess. Linguistische Aspekte der Zeitlichkeit verbaler Interaktion, edited by Hausendorf, Heiko, 95–124. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

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

Avis, Walter. 1957. “Canadian English merits a dictionary.” Culture 18: 245–256.Google Scholar

Avis, Walter. 1972. “So eh? is Canadian, eh?” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 17(2–3): 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Baker, Carol L. 1970. “Notes on the description of English questions: The role of an abstract question morpheme.” Foundations of Language 6: 197–219.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 2015. “Formal generative typology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, edited by Bernd, Heine and Heiko, Narrog, 285–312. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Banfield, Ann. 1973. “Narrative style and the grammar of direct and indirect speech.” Foundations of Language 10(1): 1–39.Google Scholar

Banfield, Ann. 1982. Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Banfield, Ann. 2002. “A grammatical definition of the genre ‘novel’.” Polyphonie Linguistique et Littéraire 4: 77–100.Google Scholar

Bateson, M. C. 1975. “Mother–infant exchanges: The epigenesis of conversational interaction.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 263(1): 101–113.Google Scholar

Battlori, Montserrat, and Hernanz, M. Lluïsa. 2011. “Emphatic polarity in Spanish and Catalan.” Paper presented at GIST 4 Workshop: Polarity Emphasis ‒ Distribution and Locus of Licensing. Ghent University.Google Scholar

Beach, Wayne, and Lindstrom, Anna. 1992. “Conversational universals and comparative theory: Turning to Swedish and American acknowledgment tokens in interaction.” Communication Theory 2(1): 24–49.Google Scholar

Benincà, Paola. 2001. “The position of Topic and Focus in the left periphery.” In Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi, edited by Cinque, Guglielmo and Salvi, Giampaolo, 39–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Beyssade, Claire, and Marandin, Jean-Claire. 2006. “The speech act assignment problem revisited: Disentangling speaker’s commitment from speaker’s call on addressee.” In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6: 37–68. www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss8/index_en.html.Google Scholar

Bezuidenhout, A. 2004. “Procedural meaning and the semantics/pragmatics interface.” In The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction, edited by Bianchi, Claudia, 101–131. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Bhadra, Diti. 2017. “Evidentiality and Questions: Bangla at the Interfaces.” Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar

Birkner, Karin, Henricson, Sofie, Lindholm, Camilla, and Pfeiffer, Martin. 2012. “Grammar and self-repair: Retraction patterns in German and Swedish prepositional phrases.” Journal of Pragmatics 44(11): 1413–1433.Google Scholar

Bjerre, Tavs, Engels, E, Jørgensen, Henrik, and Vikner, Sten. 2008. “Points of convergence between functional and formal approaches to syntactic analysis.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 82: 131–166.Google Scholar

Blain, Eleanor, and Déchaine, Rose-Marie. 2007. “Evidential types: Evidence from Cree dialects.” International Journal of American Linguistics 73(3): 257–291.Google Scholar

Blakemore, Diane. 1988. “‘So’ as a constraint on relevance.” In Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality, edited by Ruth, Kempson, 183–195. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bliss, Heather, Ritter, Elizabeth, and Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. “A comparative analysis of theme marking in Blackfoot and Nishnaabemwin.” In Papers of the 42nd Algonquian Conference, 10–33. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Olshtain, Elite. 1984. “Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns.” Applied Linguistics 5(3): 196–213.Google Scholar

Bolden, Galina B. 2003. “Multiple modalities in collaborative turn sequences.” Gesture 3: 187–212.Google Scholar

Bolden, Galina B.. 2006. “Little words that matter: Discourse markers ‘so’ and ‘oh’ and the doing of other-attentiveness in social interaction.” Journal of Communication 56: 661–688.Google Scholar

Bolden, Galina B.. 2011. “On the organization of repair in multiperson conversation: The case of ‘other’-selection in other-initiated repair sequences.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 44(3): 237–262.Google Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1946. “Thoughts on ‘yep’ and ‘nope’.” American Speech 21(2): 90–95.Google Scholar

Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric Syntax Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Borer, Hagit, and Wexler, Ken. 1987. “The maturation of syntax.” In Parameter Setting: Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, edited by Tom, Roeper and Edwin, Williams, 123–172. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Bouton, Lawrence. 1970. “Do so: Do + adverb.” In Studies Presented to Robert B. Lees by his Students, edited by Jerry, Sadock and Vanek, Anthony, 17–38. Edmonton: Linguistics Research, Inc.Google Scholar

Brennan, Susan E. 2005. “How conversation is shaped by visual and spoken evidence.” In Approaches to Studying World-Situated Language Use: Bridging the Language-as-Product and Language-as-Action Traditions, edited by Trueswell, John C. and Tanenhaus, Michael K., 95–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 1972. “Theory of Complementation in English Syntax.” Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, Penelope, and Levinson, Stephen. 1978. “Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena.” In Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, edited by Goody, Esther, 56–310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bühler, Karl. 1913. Die Gestaltwahrnehmungen. Stuttgart: Spemann.Google Scholar

Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Jena Gustav Fischer Verlag.Google Scholar

Burridge, Kate, and Florey, Margaret. 2002. “‘Yeah-no he’s a good kid’: A discourse analysis of yeah-no in Australian English.” Australian Journal of Linguistics 22(2): 149–171.Google Scholar

Burton, Strang, and Matthewson, Lisa. 2015. “Targeted construction storyboards in semantic fieldwork.” In Methodologies in Semantic Fieldwork, edited by Ryan, Bochnak and Lisa, Matthewson, 135–156. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Burton, Strang, and Wiltschko, Martina. 2015. “The eh vs. geu problem.” In Short ’schrift for Alan Prince, compiled by Eric Baković. https://princeshortschrift.wordpress.com/squibs/burton-wiltschko/.Google Scholar

Buschmeier, Hendrik, Malisz, Zofia, Wlodarczak, Marcin, Kopp, Stefan, and Wagner, Petra. 2011. “Are you sure you’re paying attention?’ – ‘Uh-huh’: Communicating understanding as a marker of attentiveness.” Proceedings of INTERSPEECH 12: 2057–2060.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2002. “Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure.” In The Evolution of Language from Pre-Language, edited by Givón, Talmy and Bertram, Malle, 109–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Caffarel, Alice, Martin, James R., and Matthiessen, Christian. 2004. Language Typology: A Functional Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Campbell, Robin, and Wales, Roger. 1970. “The study of language acquisition.” In New Horizons in Linguistics, edited by John, Lyons, 242–260. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Cann, Ronnie, Kempson, Ruth, and Marten, Lutz. 2005. Syntax and Semantics 35: The Dynamics of Language: An Introduction. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Cardinaletti, Anna. 2011. “German and Italian modal particles and clause structure.” The Linguistic Review 28: 493–531.Google Scholar

Carlson, Lauri. 1983. Dialogue Games: An Approach to Discourse Analysis. Dordrecht Reidel.Google Scholar

Casillas, Marisa, Bobb, Susan C., and Clark, Eve. 2016. “Turn-taking, timing, and planning in early language acquisition.” Journal of Child Language 43(6): 1310–1337. DOI:10.1017/S0305000915000689.Google Scholar

Cecil, Matthew Jones. 2010. “Cross-Linguistic Variation in Turn Taking Practices: A Computational Study of the Callhome Corpus.” MA thesis, University of Colorado.Google Scholar

Ceong, Hailey Hyekyeong. 2019. “The Morphosyntax of Clause Typing: Single, Double, Periphrastic, and Multifunctional Complementizers in Korean.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Victoria.Google Scholar

Chao, Yuan Ren. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: California University Press.Google Scholar

Chappell, Hilary, and Peyraube, Alain. 2016. “Modality and mood in Sinitic languages.” In The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood, edited by Jan, Nuyts and Johan, van der Auwera, 296–329. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Charlow, Nate. 2014. “Logic and semantics for imperatives.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 43: 617–664.Google Scholar

Charnavel, Isabel. 2019. Locality and Logophoricity: A Theory of Exempt Anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cheng, Lisa. 1997. On the Typology of Wh-Questions. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Chomksy, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Berlin; Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Chomksy, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomksy, Noam. 1970. “Remarks on nominalization.” In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, edited by Jacobs, Roderick A. and Rosenbaum, Peter S., 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar

Chomksy, Noam. 1978. “Language and unconscious knowledge.” In Psychoanalysis and Language (Psychiatry and the Humanities), edited by Smith, Joseph H., 3–44. New Haven, CT: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar

Chomksy, Noam. 1980. Rules and Representations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Chomksy, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomksy, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomksy, Noam. 2001. “Derivation by phase.” In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, edited by Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomksy, Noam. 2008. “On phases.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, edited by Otero, Carlos P., Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa, and Freidin, Robert, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chu, Chauncey C., and Chi, Tsung-jen. 1999. A Cognitive-Functional Grammar of Mandarin Chinese. Taiwan: Crane Publishing.Google Scholar

Ciardelli, Ivano. 2016. “Lifting conditionals to inquisitive semantics.” Proceedings of SALT 26: 732–752.Google Scholar

Ciardelli, Ivano. 2017. “Question meaning = resolution conditions.” Logic and Logical Philosophy 26(3):383–416.Google Scholar

Ciardelli, Ivano, Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Roelofsen, Floris. 2018. Inquisitive Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ciardelli, Ivano, and Roelofsen, Floris. 2015. “Inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic.” Synthese 192(6): 1643–1687.Google Scholar

Ciardelli, Ivano, and Roelofsen, Floris. 2017. “Hurford’s constraint, the semantics of disjunction, and the nature of alternatives.” Natural Language Semantics 25(3): 199–222.Google Scholar

Ciardelli, Ivano, Roelofsen, Floris, and Theiler, Nadine. 2013. “Inquisitive semantics: A new notion of meaning.” Language and Linguistics Compass 7(9): 459–476.Google Scholar

Ciardelli, Ivano, Roelofsen, Floris, and Theiler, Nadine. 2016. “Inquisitive Semantics.” Ms., Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation.Google Scholar

Ciardelli, Ivano, Roelofsen, Floris, and Theiler, Nadine. 2017. “Composing alternatives.” Linguistics and Philosophy 40: 1–36.Google Scholar

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Citko, Barbara. 2014. Phase Theory: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clancy, Patricia, Thompson, Sandra A., Suzuki, Ryoko, and Tao, Hongyin. 1996. “The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin.” Journal of Pragmatics 26: 355–387.Google Scholar

Clark, Eve, and Lindsey, Kate L.. 2015. “Turn-taking: A case study of early gesture and word use in answering WHERE and WHICH questions.” Frontiers in Psychology. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00890.Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert. 1992. Arenas of Language Use. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert, and Bangerter, Adrian. 2004. “Changing ideas about reference.” In Experimental Pragmatics, edited by Ira A. Noveck and Dan Sperber, 25–49. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert, and Brennan, Susan. 1991. “Grounding in communication.” In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, edited by Resnick, Lauren B., Levine, John M., and Teasley, Stephanie D., 127–149. Washington, DC: APA Books.Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert, and Fox Tree, Jean A.. 2002. “Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking.” Cognition 84: 73–111.Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert, and Schaefer, Edward. 1989. “Contributing to discourse.” Cognitive Science 13: 259–294.Google Scholar

Claus, Berry, Marlijn, A. Meijer, Sophie Repp, and Krifka, Manfred. 2017. “Puzzling response particles: An experimental study on the German answering system.” Semantics and Pragmatics 10(19): 1–51.Google Scholar

Clayman, Steven. 2013. “Turn-constructional units and the transition-relevance place.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by Jack, Sidnell and Tanya, Stivers, 150–167. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Clements, George. 1975. “The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse.” Journal of West African Languages 10: 141–177.Google Scholar

Collins, Chris, and Postal, Paul. 2012. Imposters: A Study of Pronominal Agreement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Columbus, Georgie. 2010. “’Ah lovely stuff, eh?’: Invariant tag meanings and usage across three varieties of English.” In Corpus-Linguistic Applications, edited by Stefan, Gries, Stefanie, Wulff, and Mark, Davies, 85–102. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Condoravdi, Cleo, and Lauer, Sven. 2012. “Imperatives: Meaning and illocutionary force.” Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9: 37–58.Google Scholar

Coniglio, Marco, and Zegraen, Iulia. 2012. “Splitting up force: Evidence from discourse particles.” In Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons, edited by Lobke, Aelbrecht, Liliane, Haegeman, and Rachel, Nye, 229–256. London: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Constant, Noah. 2012. “English rise-fall-rise: A study in the semantics and pragmatics of intonation.” Linguistics and Philosophy 35: 407–442.Google Scholar

Constant, Noah, Davis, Christopher, Potts, Christopher, and Schwarz, Florian. 2009. “The pragmatics of expressive content: Evidence from large corpora.” Sprache und Datenverarbeitung 33(1–2): 5–21.Google Scholar

Cooper, Robin. 2017. “Charting a way through the trees.” Theoretical Linguistics 43(1–2): 121–128.Google Scholar

Cooper, Robin, and Ginzburg, Jonathan. 2011. “Negation in dialogue.” Proceedings of SemDial 15: 130–139.Google Scholar

Corr, Alice. 2016. “Ibero-Romance and the Syntax of the Utterance.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Corver, Norbert. 2013. “‘Colorful spleeny ideas speak furiously’: A passionate question at the interface of language and emotion.” MS, Utrecht OTS.Google Scholar

Corver, Norbert. 2017. “Emotion in the build of Dutch: Deviation, augmentation and duplication.” Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal-en Letterkunde 132(4): 232–275.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1986. An Introduction to English Prosody. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1996a. “Intonation and clause-combining in discourse: The case of because.” Pragmatics 6(3): 389–426.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1996b. “The prosody of repetition: On quoting and mimicry.” In Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies, edited by Elizabeth, Couper-Kuhlen and Margret, Selting, 366–405. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1998. “Prosody in interactional discourse.” SKY Yearbook 1998: The Yearbook of the Linguistic Association Finland: 7–40.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2001. “Interactional prosody: High onsets in reason-for-the-call turns.” Language in Society 30: 29–53.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2004. “Prosody and sequence organization in English conversation: The case of new beginnings.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-Linguistic Studies from Conversation, edited by Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Ford, Cecilia E., 335–376.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2009. “Prosody.” In The Pragmatics of Interaction, edited by D’hondt, Sigurd, Östman, Jan-Ola, and Vershueren, Jef, 174–189. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Selting., Margaret 1996. eds. Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Selting., Margaret. 2001. “Introducing interactional linguistics.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, edited by Margaret, Selting and Elizabeth, Couper-Kuhlen, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2003. Typology and Universals. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Curl, Traci S. 2004. “‘Repetition’ repairs: The relationship of phonetic structure and sequence organization.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-Linguistic Studies from Conversation, edited by Elizabeth, Couper-Kuhlen and Ford, Cecilia E., 273–298. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Curl, Traci S.. 2005. “Practices in other-initiated repair resolution: The phonetic differentiation of repetitions.” Discourse Processes 39(1): 1–44.Google Scholar

Dahaene-Lambertz, Ghislaine, and Spelke, Elizabeth S.. 2015. “The infancy of the human brain.” Neuron 88(1): 93–109.Google Scholar

Dale, Elliott. 1971. “The grammar of emotive and exclamatory sentences in English.” Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics 8: viii–110.Google Scholar

Dale, Elliott. 1974. “Toward a grammar of exclamations.” Foundations of Language 10: 41–53.Google Scholar

Davidson, David. 1967. “Truth and meaning.” Synthese 17: 304–323.Google Scholar

Davis, Christopher. 2011. “Constraining Interpretation: Sentence Final Particles in Japanese.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachussets at Amherst.Google Scholar

Davis, Christopher, and Gutzmann, Daniel. 2015. “Use-conditional meaning and the semantics of pragmaticalization.” Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung 19: 197–213.Google Scholar

d’Avis, Franz-Josef. 2002. “On the interpretation of wh-clauses in exclamative environments.” Theoretical Linguistics 28: 5–31.Google Scholar

Davison, Alice. 1981. “Markers of derived illocutionary force and paradoxes of speech act modifiers.” Cahiers de Linguistique Française 3: 47–73.Google Scholar

Déchaine, Rose-Marie, Cook, Clare, Muehlbauer, Jeff, and Waldie, Ryan. 2017. “(De-) constructing evidentiality.” Lingua, 186: 21–54.Google Scholar

Degand, Liesbeth, and Evers-Vermeul., Jacqueline 2015. “Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16(1): 59–85.Google Scholar

DeLancey, Scott. 1997. “Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information.” Linguistic Typology 1: 33–52Google Scholar

DeLancey, Scott. 2001. “The mirative and evidentiality.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 369–382.Google Scholar

Demirdache, Hamida, and Uribe-Extebarria., Myriam 1997. “The syntax of temporal relations: A uniform approach to tense and aspect.” West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 16: 145–159.Google Scholar

den Besten, Hans. 1977 [1983]. “On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules.” In On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania, edited by Werner, Abraham, 47–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Deng, Dun. 2015. “The syntacticization of illocutionary forces and the root vs. non-root distinction: Evidence from the sentence-final particle ba in Mandarin.” Lingua 162: 32–55.Google Scholar

Denis, Derek. 2013. “The social meaning of eh in Canadian English.” Proceedings of the 2013 Canadian Linguistics Association. Available online: https://cla-acl.artsci.utoronto.ca/actes-2013-proceedings/.Google Scholar

Deppermann, Armulf. 2013. “Turn design at turn-beginnings: Multimodal resources to deal with tasks of turn-construction in German.” Journal of Pragmatics 46(1): 91–121.Google Scholar

Diewald, Gabriele. 2011. “Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions.” Linguistics 49(2): 365–390.Google Scholar

Dik, Simon. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Dingemanse, Mark. 2020. “Between sound and speech: Liminal signs in interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 53: 188–196.Google Scholar

Dingemanse, Mark, Blythe, Joe, and Dirksmeyer, Tyko. 2014. “Formats for other-initiation of repair across languages. An exercise in pragmatic typology.” Studies in Language 38(1), 5–43.Google Scholar

Dingemanse, Mark, and Enfield, Nick. 2015. “Other-initiated repair across languages: towards a typology of conversational structures.” Open Linguistics 1: 96–118.Google Scholar

Dittmann, Allen, and Llewellyn, Lynn. 1968. “Relationship between vocalizations and head nods as listener responses.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9(2): 79–84.Google Scholar

Dominguez, Sara, Devouche, Emmanuel, Apter, Gisèle, and Gratier, Maya. 2016. “The roots of turn-taking in the neonatal period.” Infant and Child Development 25(3): 240–255. DOI:10.1002/icd.1976.Google Scholar

Dowty, David R., Wall, Robert E., and Peters, Stanley. 1981. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Dretske, Fred. 1972. “Contrastive statements.” Philosophical Review 81: 411–437.Google Scholar

Drew, Paul, and Heritage, John. 1992. Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

DWDS. 2016. Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Last accessed March 24, 2016. http://zwei.dwds.de/Google Scholar

Egbert, Maria M. 1997. “Some interactional achievements of other-initiated repair in multi-person conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 27: 611–634.Google Scholar

Egerod, Søren. 1993. “The main grammatical particles in Atayal.” In Language: A Doorway between Human Cultures, edited by Øyvind, Dahl, 184–200. Oslo: Novus Forlag.Google Scholar

Eggermont, Jos J., and Moore, Jean K.. 2012. “Morphological and functional development of the auditory nervous system.” In Human Auditory Development, edited by Werner, Lynne, Fay, Richard, and Popper, Arthur, 61–105. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Eigsti, Inge-Marie. 2013. “A review of embodiment in autism spectrum disorders.” Frontiers in Psychology 4: 224.Google Scholar

Eigsti, Inge-Marie, Stevens, Michael C., Schultz, Robert T., et al. 2016. “Language comprehension and brain function in individuals with an optimal outcome from autism.” NeuroImage: Clinical 10: 182–191.Google Scholar

Emons, Joe. 1970. “Root and Structure-Preserving Transformations.” Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Ernst, Thomas. 2009. “Speaker-oriented adverbs.” Natural Langugage and Linguistic Theory 27: 497–544.Google Scholar

Esfandiari Baiat, Ghazaleh, Coler, Matt, Pullen, Marissa, Tienkouw, Sineenat, and Hunyadi, Laszlo. 2013. “Multimodal analysis of ‘well’ as a discourse marker in conversation: A pilot study.” 4th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications: 283–287.Google Scholar

Etxepare, Ricardo. 1997. “The Grammatical Representation of Speech Events.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas. 2007. “Insubordination and its uses.” In Finiteness. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Irina, Nikolaeva, 366–431. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas, and Levinson, Stephen. 2009. “The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5): 429–448. DOI:10.1017/S0140525X0999094X.Google Scholar

Falk, Jane. 1979. “The Duet as a Conversational Process.” Doctoral dissertation, Princeton University.Google Scholar

Faller, Martina. 2019. “The discourse commitments of illocutionary reportatives.” Semantics and Pragmatics 12: 1–46.Google Scholar

Farkas, Donna, and Bruce, Kim B.. 2010. “On reacting to assertions and polar questions.” Journal of Semantics 27, 81–118.Google Scholar

Farkas, Donna, and Roelofsen, Floris. 2017. “Division of labor in the interpretation of declaratives and interrogatives.” Journal of Semantics 34(2): 237–289.Google Scholar

Featherston, S. 2007. “Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot.” Theoretical Linguistics 33: 269–318.Google Scholar

Ferrara, Kathleen. 1992. “The interactive achievement of a sentence: Joint productions in therapeutic discourse.” Discourse Processes 15: 207–228.Google Scholar

Ferry, Alissa L., Hespos, Susan J., and Waxman, Sandra R.. 2010. “Categorization in 3- and 4-month-old infants: An advantage of words over tones.” Child Development 81(2): 472–479.Google Scholar

Féry, Caroline, and Ishihara, Shinichiro, eds. 2016. The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E. 2002. “Denial and the construction of conversational turns.” In Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse, 61–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 2002a. “Constituency and the grammar of turn increments.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, edited by Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A., and Thompson, Sandra A., 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 2002b. eds. The Language of Turn and Sequence (Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics). Oxford: Oxford 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 Interaction and Grammar, edited by Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel. A., and Thompson, Sandra. A., 134–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fortin, A. 2011. “The Morphology and Semantics of Expressive Affixes.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford.Google Scholar

Fox, Barbara A. 2001. “An exploration of prosody and turn projection in English conversation.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, edited by Margret, Selting and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, 287–315. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Fox, Barbara A., Hayashi, Makoto, and Jasperson, Robert. 1996. “Resources and repair: A cross-linguistic study of the syntactic organization of repair.” In Interaction and Grammar, edited by Elinor, Ochs, Emanuel A., Schegloff, and Sandra A., Thompson, 185–227. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fox, Barbara A., Maschler, Yael, and Uhmann, Susanne. 2010. “A cross-linguistic study of self-repair: Evidence from English, German and Hebrew.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(9): 2487–2505.Google Scholar

Fox, Barbara A., Wouk, Fay, Hayashi, Makoto, et al. 2009. “A cross-linguistic perspective on site of initiation of self-repair.” In Conversation Analysis. A Comparative Perspective, edited by Jack, Sidnell, 60–103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tree, Fox, Jean, E., and Schrock, Josef. 2002. “Basic meanings of you know and I mean.” Journal of Pragmatics 34: 727–747.Google Scholar

Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1989. “Non-propositional addressees.” Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 25: 41–49.Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce. 1974. “An examination of the performative analysis.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 7(1–2): 1–40.Google Scholar

Freed, Alice F., and Ehrlich, Susan. 2010. Why do you Ask?: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. 1892. “Über Sinn und Bedeutung.” Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100. Translated 1980 by Max Black as “On sense and reference,” in Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, edited by Peter Geach, 56–78. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. 1918. “Der Gedanke. Eine Logische Untersuchung,” in Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus 1, translated 1984 as ‘Thoughts’ by Peter Geach and R. H. Stoothoff in Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy, edited by Brian McGuinness, 351–372. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Fried, Mirjam, and Östman, Jan-Ola. 2004. Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Friedman, Jane. 2013. “Question‐directed attitudes.” Philosophical Perspectives 27(1): 145–174.Google Scholar

Fries, Charles. 1952. The Structure of English. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar

Gaines, Robert. 1979. “Doing by saying: Toward a theory of perlocution.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 65: 207–127.Google Scholar

Gardiner, Alan. 1932. The Theory of Speech and Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Gardner, Rod. 2001. When Listeners Talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Garrett, Edward. 2001. “Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan.” Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Gärtner, Hans-Martin, and Steinbach, Markus. 2006. “A skeptical note on the syntax of speech acts and point of view.” In Form, Structure, Grammar, edited by Patrick, Brandt and Eric, Fuß, 213–222. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar

Garvey, Catherine, and Berninger, Ginger. 1981. “Timing and turn-taking in children’s conversations.” Discourse Processes 4: 27–57.Google Scholar

Garzonio, Jacopo. 2004. “Interrogative types and left periphery: Some data from the Fiorentino dialect.” Quaderni di lavoro dell’ASIS 4: 1–19.Google Scholar

Gazdar, Gerald. 1981. “Speech act assignment.” In Elements of Discourse Understanding, edited by Josh, Aravind, Bonnie, Webber, and Ivan, Sag, 64–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Geeraerts, Dirk. 2010. “Structuralist semantics.” In Theories of Lexical Semantics, edited by Dirk, Geeraerts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gibson, Deborah. 1976. “A Thesis on Eh.” Master’s thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar

Gibson, Edward A., and Fedorenko, Evelina G.. 2010. “The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research.” Language and Cognitive Processes 28(1–2), 88–124.Google Scholar

Gillon, Carrie. 2006. “The Semantics of Determiners: Domain Restriction in Sk̲wx̲wú7mesh.” Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar

Ginzburg, Jonathan. 2012. The Interactive Stance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ginzburg, Jonathan.2016. “The semantics of dialogue.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics, edited by Maria, Aloni and Paul, Dekker, 130–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Poesio, Massimo. 2016. “Grammar is a system that characterizes talk in interaction.” Frontiers in Psychology 7 , article 1983.Google Scholar

Glougie, Jennifer. 2016. “The Semantics and Pragmatics of English Evidential Expressions: The Expression of Evidentiality in Police Interviews.” Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar

Golato, Andrea, and Fagyal, Zsuzsanna. 2008. “Comparing single and double sayings of the German response token ja and the role of prosody: A conversation analytic perspective.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(3): 241–270.Google Scholar

Gold, Elaine, and Tremblay, Mireille. 2006. “Eh? and hein?: Discourse particles or national icons?” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 51(2–3): 247–263.Google Scholar

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

Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

González-Fuente, Santiago, Tubau, Susagna, Espinal, Maria Teresa, and Prieto, Pilar. 2015. “Is there a universal answering strategy for rejecting negative propositions? Typological evidence on the use of prosody and gesture.” Frontiers in Psychology 6, article 899.Google Scholar

Goodhue, Dan, and Wagner, Michael. 2018. “Intonation, yes and no.” Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 5.Google Scholar

Goodwin, Charles. 1986. “Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments.” Human Studies 9: 205–217.Google Scholar

Gordon, Daid, and Lakoff, George. 1971. “Conversational postulates.” Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 7: 63–84.Google Scholar

Greer, Jill D. 2016. “Baxoje-Jiwere grammar sketch.” In Advances in the Study of Siouan Languages and Linguistics, edited by Rudin, Cathrin and Gordon, Bryan, 183–230. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar

Grevisse, Maurice. 1980. Le bon usage. Gembloux: Duculot.Google Scholar

Grice, Paul. 1957 “Meaning.” The Philosophical Review 66: 377–388.Google Scholar

Grice, Paul. 1968. “Utterer’s meaning, sentence-meaning, and word-meaning.” Foundations of Language 4(3): 225–242.Google Scholar

Grice, Paul. 1969. “Utterer’s meaning and intention.” The Philosophical Review 78: 147–177.Google Scholar

Grice, Paul. 1975.“Logic and conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, edited by Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L., 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

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

Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Roelofsen, Floris. 2009. “Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics.” In SPR-09: Meaning, Content and Argument, Proceedings of the ILCLI International Workshop on Semantics, Pragmatics and Rhetoric, edited by Larrazabal, Jesus M. and Zubeldia, Larraitz, 41–72. San Sebastián: University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar

Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stokhof, Martin. 1991. “Dynamic predicate logic.” Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100.Google Scholar

Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gunlogson, Christine. 2003. True to Form: Rising and Falling Declaratives as Questions in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier. 1996. “The semantics of exclamatives.” In Syntax at Sunset: UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, edited by Lee, Felicia, 146–162. Los Angeles: UCLA.Google Scholar

Gutzmann, Daniel. 2011. “Expressive modifiers and mixed expressives.” Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8: 123–141.Google Scholar

Gutzmann, Daniel. 2013. “Expressives and beyond. An introduction to varieties of use-conditional meaning.” Beyond Expressives. Explorations in Use-Conditional Meaning, edited by Daniel, Gutzmann and Hans-Martin, Gärtner, 1–58. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Gutzmann, Daniel. 2015. Use-Conditional Meaning: Studies in Multidimensional Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gutzmann, Daniel, and Gärtner, Hans-Martin, eds. 2013. Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-Conditional Meaning. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Haddican, Bill. 2015. “A note on Basque vocative clitics.” In Ibon Sarasola, Gorazarre, edited by Fernández, Beatriz and Salaburu, Pello, 303–317. Bilbao: University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar

Haegeman, Liliane. 2014. “West Flemish verb-based discourse markers and the articulation of the speech act layer.” Studia Linguistica 68(1): 116–139.Google Scholar

Haegeman, Liliane, and Hill, Virginia. 2013. “The syntacticization of discourse.” In Syntax and its Limits, edited by Raffaella, Folli, Christina, Sevdali, and Robert, Truswell, 370–390. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Haegeman, Liliane, and Hill, Virginia. 2014. “Vocatives and speech act projections: A case study in West Flemish.” In On peripheries, by Cardinaletti, Anna and Cinque, Giuglielmo, 209–236. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing.Google Scholar

Haegeman, Liliane, and Weir, Andrew. 2015. “The cartography of yes and no in West Flemish.” In Discourse-Oriented Syntax, edited by Josef, Bayer, Roland, Hinterhölzl, and Andreas, Trotzke, 175–210. London: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hagège, Claude. 1974. “Les pronoms logophoriques.” Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 69: 287–310.Google Scholar

Haggo, Douglas. 1987. “The Structure of English Tonal Morphemes.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Canterbury.Google Scholar

Hagstrom, Paul. 2017. “A‐not‐A questions.” In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed., edited by Martin, Everaert and Henk, Van Riemsdijk, 1–40. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar

Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. “Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection.” In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by Hale, Ken and Keyser, Samuel J., 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A.K. 1985a. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A.K.. 1985b. “Systemic background.” In Systemic Perspectives on Discourse: Selected Theoretical Papers from the Ninth International Systemic Workshop, vol. 1, edited by James, Benson and William, Greaves, 1–15. Norwood, NJ: AblexGoogle Scholar

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

Halliday, M. A. K., and Matthiessen, Christian. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hamblin, Charles L. 1958. “Questions.” The Australasian Journal of Philosophy 36: 159–168.Google Scholar

Hamblin, Charles L.. 1971. “Mathematical models of dialogue.” Theoria 37: 130–155.Google Scholar

Hamblin, Charles L.. 1973. “Questions in Montague English.” Foundations of Language 10: 41–53.Google Scholar

Han, Chung-Hye. 2000. The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal Grammar. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Hanks, William. 1990. Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Harris, Daniel, Fogal, Daniel, and Moss, Mat. 2017. “Speech acts: The contemporary theoretical landscape.” In New Work on Speech Acts, edited by Daniel, Harris, Daniel, Fogal, and Matt, Moss, 1–39. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Harris, Zellig S. 1946. “From morpheme to utterance.” Language 22(3): 161–183.Google Scholar

Harris, Zellig S.. 1952. “Discourse Analysis.” Language 28(1): 1–30.Google Scholar

Hausser, Roland R. 1980. “Surface compositionality and the semantics of mood.” In Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics (Texts and Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 10), edited by Searle, John R., Kiefer, Ferenc, and Bierwisch, Manfred, 71–95. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Hayashi, Makoto. 1994. “A comparative study of self-repair in English and Japanese conversation.” Japanese/Korean Linguistics 4: 77–93.Google Scholar

Hayashi, Makato, Mori, Junko, and Takagi, Tomoyo. 2002. “Contingent achievement of co-tellership in a Japanese conversation: An analysis of talk, gaze, and gesture.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, edited by Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A. and Thompson, Sandra A., 81–122. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hayne, Paul C. 1956. “Expressive Meaning.” The Journal of Philosophy 53(4): 149–157.Google Scholar

Heim, Irene. 1982. “The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite NPs.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar

Heim, Johannes. 2019a. “Commitment and Engagement: The Role of Intonation in Deriving Speech Acts.” Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar

Heim, Johannes. 2019b. “Turn-peripheral management of Common Ground: A study of Swabian gell.” Journal of Pragmatics 141: 130–146.Google Scholar

Heim, Johannes, Keupdjio, Hermann, Lam, Zoe Wai-Man, Osa-Gómez, Adriana, Thoma, Sonja, and Wiltschko, Martina. 2016. “Intonation and particles as speech act modifiers: A syntactic analysis.” Studies in Chinese Linguistics 37(2): 109–129.Google Scholar

Heim, Johannes, and Wiltschko, Martina. 2020. “Interaction at the prosody–syntax interface.” In Prosody in Syntactic Coding, edited by Kentner, Gerrit and Kremers, Joost, 189–218. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Heinz, Bettina. 2003. “Backchannel responses as strategic responses in bilingual speakers’ conversations.” Journal of Pragmatics 35(7): 1113–1142.Google Scholar

Hengeveld, Kees. 2004. “The architecture of a functional discourse grammar.” In A New Architecture for Functional Grammar, edited by Lachlan, Mackenzie and Maria, Gomez Gonzalez, 1–21. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hengeveld, Kees. 2005. “Dynamic expression in functional discourse grammar.” In Morpho-Syntactic Expression in Functional Grammar, edited by Casper, de Groot and Kees, Hengeveld, 53–86. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

Hengeveld, Kees, and Mackenzie, Lachlan. 2006. “Functional discourse grammar.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, edited by Keith, Brown, 668–676. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Hengeveld, Kees, and Mackenzie, Lachlan. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar. A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hengeveld, Kees, and Mackenzie, Lachlan. 2014. “Grammar and context in functional discourse grammar.” Pragmatics 24(2): 203–227.Google Scholar

Hentschel, Elke. 1986. Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln: ja, doch, halt und eben. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 1984. “A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement.” In Structures of Social Action, edited by Maxwell, Atkinson and John, Heritage, 299–347. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 1998. “Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry.” Language in Society 27: 291–334.Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2002. “Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement.” In The language of Turn and Sequence, edited by Cecilia, Ford, Barbara, Fox, and Sandra, Thompson, 196–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2015. “Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 88: 88–104.Google Scholar

Hill, Archibald A. 1961. “Grammaticality.” Word 17: 1–10.Google Scholar

Hill, Nathan. 2012. “Mirativity does not exist: Ḥdug in ‘Lhasa’ Tibetan and other suspects.” Linguistic Typology,16(3): 389–434.Google Scholar

Hill, Virginia. 2007. “Vocatives and the pragmatics–syntax interface.” Lingua 117(12): 2077–2105.Google Scholar

Hill, Virginia. 2014. Vocatives: How Syntax Meets with Pragmatics. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Hillbrink, Elma E., Gattis, Merideth, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2015. “Early developmental changes in the timing of turn-taking: A longitudinal study of mother–infant interaction.” Frontiers in Psychology, 6, article 1492. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01492.Google Scholar

Hintikka, Jaakko. 1972. Logic, Language-Games and Information: Kantian Themes in the Philosophy of Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hintikka, Jaakko. 1976. The Semantics of Questions and the Questions of Semantics: Case Studies in the Interrelations of Logic, Semantics, and Syntax. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Hintikka, Jaakko. 1981. “On the logic of an interrogative model of scientific inquiry.” Synthese 47(1): 69–83.Google Scholar

Hinzen, Wolfram. 2012. “Narrow syntax and the language of thought.” Philosophical Psychology 26(1): 1–23.Google Scholar

Hinzen, Wolfram, and Sheehan, Michelle. 2013. The Philosophy of Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hinzen, Wolfram, and Wiltschko, Martina. 2018. “The grammar of truth.” Inquiry. DOI: 10.1080/0020174X.2018.1532691.Google Scholar

Hinzen, Wolfram, and Wiltschko, Martina. 2020. “Modelling non-specific linguistic variation in cognitive disorders.” MS, ICREA, UPF.Google Scholar

Hirose, Yukui. 2014. “The conceptual basis for reflexive constructions in Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics 68: 99–116.Google Scholar

Hockett, Charles. 1960. “The Origin of Speech.” Scientific American, 203(3): 88–97.Google Scholar

Holmberg, Anders. 2013. “The syntax of answers to polar questions in English and Swedish.” Lingua 128: 31–50.Google Scholar

Holmberg, Anders. 2016. The Syntax of Yes and No. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Holmer, Arthur. 2005. “Seediq: Antisymmetry and final particles in a Formosan VOS language.” In Verb First: On the Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages, edited by Andrew, Carnie, Heidi, Harley, and Sheila, Ann Dooley, 175–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence. 2004. “Implicature.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, edited by Laurence, Horn and Gregory, Ward, 3–28. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence. 2013. “I love me some datives: Expressive meaning, free datives and F-implicature.” In Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-Conditional Meaning, edited by Gutzmann, Daniel and Gärtner, Hans-Martin, 153–201. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Howe, Mary L. 1991. “Topic Changes in Conversation.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar

Hu, Mingyang. 1981. “Beijinghua de yuqi zhuci he tanci [Mood helping-words and interjections in Beijing dialect)].” Zhongguo Yuwen [Chinese Linguistics] 5(6): 347.Google Scholar

Hu, Mingyang. 1988. “Yuqi zhuci de yuqi yiyi [Modal meaning of mood particles].” Hanyu Xuexi [Chinese Study] 6: 4–7.Google Scholar

Huffmann, Franklin. 1970. Modern Spoken Cambodian. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Hymes, Dell. 1972. “On communicative competence.” In Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings, edited by Pride, J. B. and Holmes, Janet, 269–293. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar

Itzler, Sarah. 2013. “Recipient design in institutioneller Mehrparteieninteraktion.” Gesprächsforschung (Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion) 14: 110–132.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X-Bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Poetik: Ausgewaehlte aufsaetze 1921–1971. Frankfurt Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

James, Deborah. 1972. “Some aspects of the syntax and semantics of interjections.” Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 8:162–172.Google Scholar

James, Deborah. 1974. “Another look at, say, some grammatical constraints on, oh, interjections and hesitations.” Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 10: 242–251.Google Scholar

Janssen, Theo. 2001. “Frege, contextuality and compositionality.” Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 10: 15–136.Google Scholar

Jaszolt, Kasia M. 2016. Meaning in Linguistic Interaction. Semantics, Metasemantics, Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 1978. “Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation.” In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, edited by Jim, Schenkein, 219–248. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 1984. “Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens ‘yeah’; and ‘mm hm’.” Papers in Linguistics 17(2): 197–216.Google Scholar

Johnson, Marion. 1976. “Canadian eh.” Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 153–160.Google Scholar

Jones, Bob Morris. 1999. The Welsh Answering System. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien, and Lohmann, Arne. 2016. “Extra-clausal constituents: An overview.” In Outside the Clause: Form and Function of Extra-Clausal Constituents, edited by Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien, and Lohmann, Arne, 1–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kamp, Hans. 1981. “A theory of truth and semantic representation.” In Formal Methods in the Study of Language (Mathematical Centre Tracts 135), edited by Groenendijk, Jeroen A. G., Janssen, Theo M. V., and Stokhof, Martin B. J., 277–322. Amsterdam:Mathematisch Centrum.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

Kant, Immanuel. 1781. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited 2019 by Guyer, Paul and Wood, Allen W.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kao, Hsiao-Lin. 2010. “A Study of Particles in C’uli Atayal.” Master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University.Google Scholar

Kaplan, David 1989. “Demonstratives.” In Themes from Kaplan, edited by Joseph, Almog, John, Perry, and Howard, Wettstein, 481–563. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kaplan, David. 1999. “The meaning of oops and ouch.” Howison Lecture in Philosophy delivered at UC Berkeley.Google Scholar

Karttunen, Lauri. 1974. “Presupposition and linguistic context.” Theoretical Linguistics 1: 181–193.Google Scholar

Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. “The syntax and semantics of questions.” Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44.Google Scholar

Katz, Jerry, and Postal, Paul. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kaufmann, Magdalena. 2012. Interpreting Imperatives (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 88). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Kaufmann, Stefan, and Schwager, Magdalena. 2009. “A unified analysis of conditional imperatives.” Semantics and Linguistic Theory 19: 239–256.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1969. “The Transformational Cycle in French syntax.” Doctoral dissertation, Massachussetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Keizer, Evelien. 2015. A Functional Discourse Grammar for English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kempson, Ruth, Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, Meyer-Viol, Wilfried, Purver, Matthew, White, Graham and Cann, Ronnie. 2011. “Natural-language syntax as procedures for interpretation: The dynamics of ellipsis construal.” In Ludics, Dialogue and Interaction, edited by Lecomte, Alain and Tronçon, Samuel, 114–133. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Kempson, Ruth, Meyer-Viol, Wilfried, and Gabbay, Dov. 2000. Dynamic Syntax: The Flow of Language Understanding. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Kendon, Adam. 1967. “Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction.” Acta Psychologica 26, 22–63.Google Scholar

Kendrick, Kobin. 2015. “Other-initiated repair in English.” Open Linguistics 1: 164–190.Google Scholar

Kern, Friederike. 2010. “Speaking dramatically: The prosody of live radio commentary of football matches.” In Prosody in Interaction, edited by Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Reber, Elisabeth, and Selting, Margret, 217–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kido, Yasuhito. 2015. “On the syntactic structure of bai and tai in Hichiku dialect.” KUPL 35: 173–196.Google Scholar

Kishida, Maki. 2011. “Reflexives in Japanese.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar

Klammer, Thomas. 1971. “The Structure of Dialogue Paragraphs in Written Dramatic and Narrative Discourse.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar

Kölbel, Max. 2004. “Faultless disagreement.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society New Series 104: 53–73.Google Scholar

Kolkeid, Terry. 1976. “Topics in Lardil Grammar.” Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Koopman, Hilda, and Sportiche, Dominique. 1989. “Pronouns, logical variables and logophoricity in Abe.” Linguistic Inquiry 20: 555–589.Google Scholar

Koschmieder, Erwin. 1929. Zeitbezug und Sprache. Ein Beitrag zur Aspekt- und Tempusfrage. Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner.Google Scholar

Kramer, Ruth, and Rawlins, Kyle. 2009. “Polarity particles: An ellipsis account.” Proceedings of NELS 39: 479–92.Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred 2008. “Basic notions of information structure.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3–4): 243–276.Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 2013. “Response particles as propositional anaphors.” Proceedings of SALT 23: 1–18.Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 2015. “Bias in commitment space semantics: Declarative questions, negated questions, and question tags,” Semantics and Linguistic Theory 25: 328–345.Google Scholar

Kuipers, Aert. 1967. The Squamish Language: Grammar, Texts, Dictionary. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Kuno, Susumo. 1973. The Structure of The Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. “Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language.” Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Kuroda, S.-Y.. 1973. “Where epistemology, style, and grammar meet: A case study from Japanese.” In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, edited by Stephen, Anderson and Paul, Kiparsky, 377–391. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Kwon, Iksoo. 2011. “Mental spaces in the Korean reportive/quotative evidentiality marker -ay.” Tamhwa-wa Inci [Discourse and Cognition] 18(2): 23–50.Google Scholar

Lackey, Jennifer. 2007. “Norms of assertion.” Noûs 41(4): 594–626.Google Scholar

Ladd, Robert. 1980. The Structure of Intonational Meaning. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Ladd, Robert. 1981. “A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions.” Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 17: 164–171.Google Scholar

Laka, Itziar. 1994. On the Syntax of Negation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1965. On the Nature of Syntactic Irregularity. Report No. NSF-16, Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation to the National Science Foundation. Cambridge, MA: Computation Laboratory of Harvard University.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1972. “Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts.” Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 8: 183–228.Google Scholar

Lakoff, Robin. 1968. Abstract Syntax and Latin Complementation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lam, Zoe Wai-Man. 2014. “A complex ForceP for speaker- and addressee-oriented discourse particles in Cantonese.” Studies in Chinese Linguistics 35(2): 61–80.Google Scholar

Langus, Alan, Mehler, Jacques, and Nespor, Marina. 2017. “Rhythm in language acquisition.” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. DOI:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.12.012.Google Scholar

Larson, Richard. 1988. “On the double object construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 19(3): 335–391.Google Scholar

Lasersohn, Peter. 2005. “Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste.” Linguistics and Philosophy 28(6): 643–686.Google Scholar

Lee, Patricia. 1974. “Perlocution and illocution.” Journal of English Linguistics 8(1): 32–40.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey (1976). “Metalanguage, pragmatics and performatives.” In Semantics: Theory and Application, edited by Rameh, Cleah, 81-88 (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics), 81–98. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Lerner, Gene H. 1991. “On the syntax of sentences-in-progress.” Language in Society 20(3): 441–458.Google Scholar

Levelt, Willem J. M. 1983. “Monitoring and self-repair in speech.” Cognition 14: 41–104.Google Scholar

Levelt, Willem J. M.. 1989. Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 2019. “Interactional foundations of language: The interaction engine hypothesis.” In Human Language: From Genes and Brain to Behavior, edited by Hagoort, Peter, 189–200. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, David. 1969. “Convention: A Philosophical Study.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, David. 1970. “General semantics.” Synthese 22: 18–67.Google Scholar

Lewis, David. 1979. “Scorekeeping in a language game.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8(1): 339–359.Google Scholar

Li, Boya. 2006. Chinese Final Particles and the Syntax of the Periphery. Leiden: Leiden University Press.Google Scholar

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

Li, Feifei, Gonzalez-Fuente, Santiago, Prieto, Pilar, and Espinal, M. Teresa. 2016. “Is Mandarin Chinese a truth-based language? Rejecting responses to negative assertions and questions.” Frontiers in Psychology 7: article 1967.Google Scholar

Li, Min, and Xiao, Yan. 2012. “A comparative study on the use of the discourse marker well by Chinese learners of English and native English speakers.” International Journal of English Linguistics 2(5): 65–71.Google Scholar

Li, Charles N., Thompson, Sandra A., and Zhang, Bohiang. 1998. “Cong huayu jiaodu lunzheng yuqici ‘de’ (The particle ‘de’ as an evidential marker in Chinese).” Zhongguo Yuwen (Chinese Linguistics) 2: 93–102.Google Scholar

Liberman, Mark, and Sag, Ivan. 1974. “Prosodic form and discourse function.” Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 10 : 416–427.Google Scholar

Lindquist, Kristen A., MacCormack, Jennifer K., and Shablack, Holly. 2015. “The role of language in emotion: Predictions from psychological constructionism.” Frontiers in Psychology 6: article 444.Google Scholar

Linell, Per. 1998. Approaching Dialogue: Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives. London: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Local, John, Kelly, John, and Wells, W. H. G.. 1986. “Towards a phonology of conversation: Turn-taking in Tyneside English.” Journal of Linguistics 22: 411–437.Google Scholar

Longacre, Robert. 1996. The Grammar of Discourse. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Love, Tracey. 1973. “An Examination of eh as Question Particle.” BA thesis, University of Alberta.Google Scholar

Malamud, Sophia, and Stephenson, Tamina. 2011. “Three ways to avoid commitments: Declarative force modifiers in the conversational scoreboard.” SemDial 2011: Proceedings of the 15th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue: 74–83.Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1997. “No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2): 201–225.Google Scholar

Marcu, Daniel. 2000. “Perlocutions: The Achilles’ heel of speech act theory.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1719–1741.Google Scholar

Marno, Hanna, Farroni, Teresa, Santos, Yamil Vidal Dos, Ekramnia, Milad, Nespor, Marina, and Mehler, Jacques. 2015. “Can you see what I am talking about? Human speech triggers referential expectation in four-month-old infants.” Scientific Reports 5(1): article 13594.Google Scholar

Marten, Lutz, and Kempson, Ruth. 2002. “Pronouns, agreement, and the dynamic construction of verb phrase interpretation: A Dynamic Syntax approach to Bantu clause structure.” Linguistic Analysis (Special Edition on African Linguistics in the New Millennium) 32: 471–504.Google Scholar

Matthewson, Lisa. 1998. Determiner Systems and Quantificational Strategies: Evidence from Salish. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar

Maynard, Senko. 1986. “On back-channel behavior in Japanese and English casual conversations.” Linguistics 24: 1079–1108.Google Scholar

Maynard, Senko. 1989. Japanese Conversation: Self-Contextualization through Structure and Interactional Management. New York: Ablex.Google Scholar

Maynard, Senko. 1990. “Conversation management in contrast: Listener responses in Japanese and American English.” Journal of Pragmatics 14: 397–412.Google Scholar

McCawley, James. 1971. “Prelexical syntax.” In 22nd Annual Round Table Linguistics: Developments of the Sixties – Viewpoints for the Seventies, edited by Richard, O’Brien, 19–33. Washington, DC: Georgetown University.Google Scholar

McCawley, James. 1985. “What price the performative analysis?” University of Chicago Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 43–64.Google Scholar

McCready, E. 2008. “What man does.” Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 671–724.Google Scholar

Merchant, Jason. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory Of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Merchant, Jason. 2004. “Fragments and ellipsis.” Linguistics and Philosophy 27(6): 661–738.Google Scholar

Mill, John Stuart. 1865. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, vol. 9: An Examination of William Hamilton’s Philosophy. London: Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar

Mittwoch, Anita. 1976. “Grammar and illocutionary force.” Lingua 40(1): 21–42.Google Scholar

Mittwoch, Anita. 1977. “How to refer to one’s own words: Speech-act modifying adverbials and the performative analysis.” Journal of Linguistics 13(2): 177–189.Google Scholar

Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2017. Agreement beyond Phi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Moerman, Michael. 2010. Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Montague, Richard. 1970a. “English as a formal language.” In Linguaggi nella Società e nella Tecnica, edited by by Visentini, Bruno et al., 189–224. Milan: Edizioni di Communità.Google Scholar

Montague, Richard. 1970b. “Universal grammar.” Theoria 36: 373–398.Google Scholar

Montague, Richard. 1973. “The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English.” In Approaches to Natural Language, edited by Hintikka, Jaakko, Moravcsik, J. M. E., and Suppes, Patrick, 221–242. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Mukherjee, Aparna. 2008. “Evidentiality: The Case of Bangla ‘NAKI’.” Master’s thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru University.Google Scholar

Munaro, Nicola, and Poletto, Cecilia. 2002. “Ways of clausal typing.” Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 27: 87–105.Google Scholar

Murray, Sarah. 2010. “Evidentiality and the Structure of Speech Acts.” Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers.Google Scholar

Murray, Sarah. 2014. “Varieties of update.” Semantics and Pragmatics 7(2): 1–53.Google Scholar

Myhill, John. 2001. “Typology and discourse analysis.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, edited by Deborah, Schiffrin, Deborah, Tannen, and Hamilton, Heidi E., 161–174. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Naro, Anthony. 1968. “History of Portuguese Passives and Impersonals.” Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Nash, David. 1980. “Topics in Warlpiri Grammar.” Doctoral dissertation, Massachussetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Németh, Zsuzsanna. 2012. “Recycling and replacement repairs as self-initiated same-turn self-repair strategies in Hungarian.” Journal of Pragmatics 44(14): 2022–2034.Google Scholar

Nespor, Marina, and Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1996. Generative Linguistics. A Historical Perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, Frederick J.. 2003. “Grammar is grammar and usage is usage.” Language 79(4): 682–707.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, Frederick J.. 2016. “On language not being at root a communication system: Some morphosyntactic considerations.” In Language Evolution and Mind: Essays in Honour of Anne Reboul, edited by Saint-Germier, Pierre, 141–159. London: College Publications.Google Scholar

Norrick, Neal. 1995. “Hunh-tags and evidentiality in conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 23: 687–692.Google Scholar

Nübling, Damaris. 2004. “Die prototypische Interjektion: Ein Definitionsvorschlag.” Journal of Pragmatics 18: 193–207.Google Scholar

(Ochs) Keenan, Elinor. 1974. “Conversational competence in children.” Journal of Child Language 1(2): 163–183.Google Scholar

Ochs Keenan, Elinor. 1976. “The universality of conversational postulates.” Language in Society 5(1): 67–80.Google Scholar

Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1996. Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ogden, C. K., and Richards, I. A.. 1923. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. London: ARK.Google Scholar

Ogden, Richard. 2012. “Prosodies in conversation.” In Understanding Prosody: The Role of Context, Function and Communication, edited by Niebuhr, Oliver, 201–218. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Ortony, Andrew, Clore, Gerald, and Collins, Allan. 1988. The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Osa-Gomez, Adriana. 2020. “Epistemic (Mis)Alignment In Discourse: What Spanish Discourse Markers Reveal.” Doctoral dissertation: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar

Oyharçabal, Bernard. 1993. “Verb agreement with non arguments: On allocutive agreement.” In Generative Studies in Basque Linguistics, edited by Hualde, José I and de Urbina, Jon Ortiz, 89–114. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Pak, Miok. 2006. “Jussive clauses and agreement of sentence final particles in Korean.” Japanese/Korean Linguistics 14: 295–306.Google Scholar

Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Thornburg, Linda. 2011. “Emotion and desire in independent complement clauses: A case study from German.” In Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion, edited by Mario, Brdar, Stefan, Gries, and Milena, Žic Fuchs, 87–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara. 1975. “Montague grammar and transformational grammar.” Linguistic Inquiry 6: 203–300.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara. 2014. “A brief history of the syntax–semantics interface in Western formal linguistics.” Semantics–Syntax Interface 1(1): 1–21.Google Scholar

Partridge, Eric 1966. Origins: A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English, 4th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Paul, Waltraud. 2014. “Why particles are not particular: Sentence-final particles in Chinese as heads of a split CP.” Studia Linguistica 68 (1): 77–115.Google Scholar

Paul, Waltraud. 2015. New Perspectives on Chinese Syntax. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Pelletier, Jeff. 2001. “Did Frege believe Frege’s principle?” Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 10: 87–114.Google Scholar

Peterson, Tyler. 2013. “Rethinking mirativity: The expression and implication surprise.” MS, University of Toronto. Available online at: http://semanticsarchive.net.Google Scholar

Peterson, Tyler. 2016. “Mirativity as surprise: Evidentiality, information, and deixis.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 45(6): 1327–1357.Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, Janet, and Hirschberg, Julia. 1990. “The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse.” In Intentions in Communication, edited by Philip, Cohen and Jerry, Morgan, 271–311. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Platero, Paul. 1978. “Missing Noun Phrases in Navajo.” Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Platzack, Christer, and Rosengren, Inger. 2017. “What makes the imperative clause type autonomous? A comparative study in a modular perspective.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 98: 1–82.Google Scholar

Poesio, Massimo, and Traum, David R.. 1997. “Conversational actions and discourse situations.” Computational Intelligence 13: 309–347.Google Scholar

Poesio, Massimo, and Rieser, Hannes. 2010. “(Prolegomena to a theory of) completions, continuations, and coordination in dialogue.” Dialogue and Discourse 1: 1–89.Google Scholar

Poesio, Massimo, and Rieser, Hannes. 2011. “An incremental model of anaphora and reference resolution based on resource situations.” Dialogue and Discourse 1: 235–277.Google Scholar

Polinsky, Maria. 2010. “Linguistic typology and formal grammar.” In The Oxford Handbook of Typology, edited by Jae, Jung Sung, 650–665. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pomerantz, Anita, and Heritage, John. 2013. “Preference.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by Sidnell, Jack and Tanya, Stivers, 210–228. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Pope, Emily. 1976. Questions and Answers in English. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Portner, Paul. 2005. “The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types.” In Proceedings of SALT 14, edited by Kazuha, Watanabe and Young, Robert B.. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Portner, Paul. 2007. “Imperatives and modals.” Natural Language Semantics 15(4): 351–383.Google Scholar

Potts, Christopher. 2007. “The expressive dimensions.” Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 165–198.Google Scholar

Prince, Ellen. 1981. “Toward a taxonomy of given/new information.” In Radical Pragmatics, edited by Peter, Cole, 223–254. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Provasi, Joëlle, Anderson, David I., and Barbu-Roth, Marianne. 2014. “Rhythm perception, production, and synchronization during the perinatal period.” Frontiers in Psychology 5. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01048.Google Scholar

Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ramchand, Gillian, and Svenonius, Peter. 2014. “Deriving the functional hierarchy.” Language Sciences 46: 152–174.Google Scholar

Ramus, Franck. 2002. “Language discrimination by newborns: Teasing apart phonotactic, rhythmic, and intonational cues.” Annual Review of Language Acquisition 2(1): 85–115.Google Scholar

Reboul, A.C. 2015. “Why language really is not a communication system: A cognitive view of language evolution.” Frontiers in Psychology 6. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01434Google Scholar

Recanati, François. 2004. “Pragmatics and semantics.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, edited by Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory, 442–462. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Repp, Sophie. 2013. “Common ground management: Modal particles, illocutionary negation and VERUM.” In Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-Conditional Meaning, edited by Daniel, Gutzmann and Hans-Martin, Gärtner, 231–274. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Ritter, Elizabeth, and Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. “The composition of INFL.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32(4): 1331–1386.Google Scholar

Ritter, Elizabeth, and Wiltschko, Martina. 2019. “Nominal speech act structure: Evidence from the structural deficiency of impersonal pronouns.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 64(4): 709–729.Google Scholar

Ritter, Elizabeth, and Wiltschko, Martina. 2020. “Interacting with vocatives!” Talk presented at the Canadian Linguistic Association 2020.Google Scholar

Ritter, Elizabeth, and Wiltschko, Martina. in press. “The syntax of formality. Universals and Variation.” Proceedings of the Canadian Linguistics Association.Google Scholar

Ritva, Laury, Etelämäki, Marja, and Couper-Kuhlen., Elizabeth 2014. “Introduction.” Pragmatics 24(3): 435–452.Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. “The fine structure of the left periphery.” In Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, edited by Liliane, Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar