Aijmer, Karin. 1986. Why is actually so popular in spoken English? In Tottie, Gunnel & Bäcklund, Ingegerd (eds.), English in speech and writing: A symposium. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 119–127.Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English discourse particles. Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aijmer, Karin. 2016. Pragmatic markers as constructions. The case of anyway. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien & Lohmann, Arne (eds.), Outside the clause – Form and function of extra-clausal constituents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Almor, Amit. 1999. Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review 106, 748–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmann, Gerry T. & Kamide, Yuki. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73 (3), 247–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ameka, Felix. 1992. Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 18, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, John R., Reder, Lynne M. & Lebiere, Christian. 1996. Working memory: Activation limits on retrieval. Cognitive Psychology 30 (3), 221–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Antomo, Mailin & Steinbach, Markus. 2010. Desintegration und Interpretation: Weil-V2- Sätze an der Schnittstelle zwischen Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 29 (1), 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira. 1991. The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar. Journal of Pragmatics 16, 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Arnold, Jennifer, Fagnano, Maria & Tanenhaus, Michael K.. 2003. Disfluencies signal theee, um, new information. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Auer, Peter, 1996a. The pre-front field in spoken German and its relevance as a grammaticalization position. Pragmatics 6 (3), 295–322.Google Scholar

Auer, Peter. 1996b. On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations. In Couper- Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Selting, Margret (eds.), Prosody in conversation. Interactional studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Auer, Peter. 2000. On-line syntax – oder: Was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der mündlichen Sprache ernst zu nehmen. Sprache und Literatur 85, 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Auer, Peter. 2005. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25 (1), 7–36.Google Scholar

Auer, Peter. 2009. On-line syntax: thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31 (1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Auer, Peter. 2015. The temporality of language in interaction: Projection and latency. In Deppermann, Arnulf & Günthner, Susanne (eds.), Temporality in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 27–56.Google Scholar

Auer, Peter & Maschler, Yael. 2013. Discourse or grammar? VS patterns in spoken Hebrew and spoken German narratives. Language Sciences 37, 147–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Auer, Peter & Pfänder, Stefan (eds.). 2011. Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Baars, Bernard J. 1988. A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baars, Bernard J. 1997. In the theater of consciousness: The workspace of the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baars, Bernard J. 1998. Metaphors of consciousness and attention in the brain. Trends in Neurosciences 21, 58–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Baddeley, Alan D. 1981. The role of subvocalisation in reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 33A, 439–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baddeley, Alan D. 1986. Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google ScholarPubMed

Baddeley, Alan D. 2000. The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4, 417–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Baddeley, Alan D. 2002. Is working memory still working? European Psychologist 7 (2), 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baddeley, Alan D. 2003. Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders 36, 189–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Baddeley, Alan D. & Hitch, Graham J.. 2000. Development of working memory: Should the Pascual-Leone and the Baddeley and Hitch models be merged? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 77 (2), 128–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Baddeley, Alan D. & Logie, Robert H.. 1999. The multi-component model. In Miyake, Akira & Shah, Priti (eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 28–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1986 [1978]. The problem of speech genres. In Emerson, Caryl & Holquist, Michael (eds.), Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press, 60–102.Google Scholar

Barr, Dale J. 2001. Trouble in mind: Paralinguistic indices of effort and uncertainty in communication. In Cavé, Christian, Guaïtella, Isabelle & Santi, Serge (eds.), Oralié et gestualité, communication multimodale, interaction. Paris: L’Harmattan, 597–600.Google Scholar

Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar. 2014. Dialogism and the emergence of final particles: The case of ‘and’. In Günthner, Susanne, Imo, Wolfgang & Bücker, Jörg (eds.), Grammar and dialogism. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 335–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barrouillet, Pierre, Bernardin, Sophie & Camos, Valérie. 2004. Time constraints and resource sharing in adults’ working memory spans. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 133 (1), 83–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Beattie, Geoff. 1979. Planning units in spontaneous speech: some evidence from hesitation in speech and speaker gaze direction in conversation. Linguistics 17, 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beckner, Clay & Bybee, Joan. 2009. A usage-based account of constituency and reanalysis. Language Learning 59, 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beeching, Kate & Detges, Ulrich. 2014. Introduction. In Beeching, Kate & Detges, Ulrich (eds.), Discourse functions at the right and left periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Leiden: Brill, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beeman, Mark & Chiarello, Christine. 1998. Complementary right- and left-hemisphere language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 7 (1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bell, David. 1998. Cancellative discourse markers: A core/periphery approach. Pragmatics 8 (4), 515–542.Google Scholar

Bernal, Byron & Ardila, Alfredo. 2014. Bilateral representation of language: A critical review and analysis of some unusual cases. Journal of Neurolinguistics 28, 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berrendonner, Alain. 1990. Pour une macro-syntaxe. Travaux de Linguistique 21, 25–36.Google Scholar

Berrendonner, Alain. 2002. Les deux syntaxes. Verbum 24 (1–2), 23–36.Google Scholar

Bernini, Giuliano & Schwartz, Marcia L. (eds.). 2006. Pragmatic organization of discourse. [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, Eurotype 20–8]. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written english. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Blake, Margaret Lehman. 2006. Clinical relevance of discourse characteristics after right hemisphere brain damage. American Journal of Speech–Language Pathology 15 (3), 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blake, Margaret Lehman. 2009. Inferencing processes after right hemisphere brain damage: effects of contextual bias. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 52 (2), 373–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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

Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 2003. Le recouvrement de la syntaxe et de la macro-syntaxe. In Scarano, Antonietta (ed.), Macro-syntaxe et pragmatique. L’analyse linguistique de l’oral. Roma: Bulzoni, 53–75.Google Scholar

Blanche-Benveniste, Claire, Bilger, Mireille, Rouget, Christine & Van den Eynde, Karel. 1990. Le français parlé: études grammaticales. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.Google Scholar

Blanken, Gerhard. 1991. The functional basis of speech automatisms (recurring utterances). Aphasiology 5, 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blanken, Gerhard, Wallesch, Claus W. & Papagno, Constanza. 1990. Dissociations of language functions in aphasics with speech automatisms (recurring utterances). Cortex 26, 41–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Blonder, Lee Xenakis, Bowers, Dawn & Heilman, Kenneth M.. 1991. The role of the RH in emotional communication. Brain 114 (3), 1115–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bock, Kathryn. 1982. Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review 89, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bock, Kathryn 1987. Co-ordinating words and syntax in speech plans. In Ellis, Andrew W. (ed.), Progress in the psychology of language. London: Erlbaum, 337–390.Google Scholar

Bock, Kathryn & Irwin, David E.. 1980. Syntactic effects of information availability in sentence formulation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19, 467–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bock, Kathryn & Levelt, William J.M.. 1994. Language production: grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, Morton A. (ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego: Academic Press, 945–984.Google Scholar

Bolden, Galina. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bolden, Galina. 2008. “So what’s up?”: using the discourse marker “so” to launch conversational business. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (3), 302–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1976. Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 1, 1–14.Google Scholar

Bookheimer, Susan. 2002. Functional MRI of language: new approaches to understanding the cortical organization of semantic processing. Annual Review of Neuroscience 25 (1), 151–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Borod, Joan C., Bloom, Ronald, Brickman, Adam, Nakhutina, Luba & Curko, Elizabeth. 2002. Emotional processing deficits in individuals with unilateral brain damage. Applied Neuropsychology, 9 (1), 23–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bottini, Gabriella, Corcoran, Rhiannon, Sterzi, Roberto, Paulesu, Eraldo, Schenone, Pietro, Scarpa, Pina, Frackowiak, Richard & Frith, C. D.. 1994. The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language: A positron emission tomography activation study. Brain 117, 1241–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boye, Kasper. 2012. Epistemic Meaning. A crosslinguistic functional-cognitive study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bradshaw, John L. & Mattingley, Jason B.. 1995. Clinical neuropsychology: Behavioral and brain science. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Brady, Marian, Armstrong, Linda & Mackenzie, Catherine. 2006. An examination over time of language and discourse production abilities following right hemisphere brain damage. Journal of Neurolinguistics 19 (4), 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brazil, David. 1995. A grammar of speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Brenning, Jana. 2015. Syntaktische Ko-konstruktionen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English. Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Briz, Antonio. 2001. El español coloquial en la conversación. Esbozo de pragmagramática. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar

Broadbent, Donald E. 1958. Perception and communication. London: Pergamon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brownell, Hiram H., Potter, Heather H., Bihrle, Amy M. & Gardner, Howard. 1986. Inference deficits in right brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language 27 (2), 310–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Brownell, Hiram H. & Joanette, Yves (eds.). 1993. Narrative discourse in neurological impaired and normal aging adults. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Buchsbaum, Bradley, Hickok, Gregory & Humphries, Colin. 2001. Role of left posterior superior temporal gyrus in phonological processing for speech perception and production. Cognitive Sciences 25, 663–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burklund, Charles W. & Smith, Aaron. 1977. Language and the cerebral hemispheres. Neurology 27, 627–633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Burton-Roberts, Noel. 2006. Parentheticals. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 9. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 179–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caplan, David, Stanczak, Louise & Waters, Gloria. 2008. Syntactic and thematic constraint effects on blood oxygenation level dependent signal correlates of comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20, 643–656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Caplan, Rochelle & Dapretto, Mirella. 2001. Making sense during conversation: An fMRI study. Neuroreport 12 (16), 3625–3632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Carreiras, Manuel, Pattamadilok, Chotiga, Meseguer, Enrique, Barber, Horacio & Devlin, Joseph T.. 2012. Broca’s area plays a causal role in morphosyntactic processing. Neuropsychologia 50, 816–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carroll, Ruth. 2008. Historical English phraseology and the extender tag. Selim 15, 7–37.Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn. 2004. Explicature and semantics. In Davis, Steven & Gillon, Brendan (eds.), Semantics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 817–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1992. Intonation units and prominences in English natural discourse. Proceedings of the IRCS Workshop on prosody in natural speech, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, Report No. 92–37. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time. The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 2012. From thoughts to sounds. In Gee, James P. & Handford, Michael (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. New York: Routledge, 357–265.Google Scholar

Champagne-Lavau, Maud & Joanette, Yves. 2009. Pragmatics, theory of mind and executive functions after a right-hemisphere lesion: Different patterns of deficits. Journal of Neurolinguistics 22, 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chantraine, Yves, Joanette, Yves & Ska, Bernadette. 1998. Conversational abilities in patients with right hemisphere damage. In Paradis, Michel (ed.), Pragmatics in neurogenic communication disorders. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 21–32.Google Scholar

Cherchi, Lucien. 1985. On the role of ellipsis in discourse coherence. In Meyer-Hermann, Reinhard & Rieser, Hannes (eds.), Ellipsen und fragmentarische Ausdrücke. Band 2. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 224–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cherry, Colin E. 1953. Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 25, 975–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny. 2007. Discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11 (2), 155–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chipere, Ngoni. 2009. Individual differences in processing complex grammatical structures. In Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David & Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1966. Cartesian Linguistics: a Chapter in the history of rationalist thought. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

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

Christianson, Kiel & Ferreira, Fernanda. 2005. Conceptual accessibility and sentence production in a free word order language (Odawa). Cognition 98, 105–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, Herbert. 2002. Speaking in time. Speech Communication 36, 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, Herbert & Fox Tree, Jean. 2002. Using ‘uh’ and ‘um’ in spontaneous speaking. Cognition 84, 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, Herbert & Wasow, Thomas. 1998. Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology 37, 201–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Clayman, Steven E. 2012. Address terms in the organization of turns at talk: The case of pivotal turn extensions. Journal of Pragmatics 44 (13), 1853–1867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Code, Chris. 1982. Neurolinguistic analysis of recurrent utterance in aphasia. Cortex 18, 141–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Code, Chris. 1987. Language, aphasia, and the right hemisphere. London: Wiley.Google Scholar

Code, Chris. 1991. Speech automatisms and recurring utterances. In Code, Chris (ed.), The characteristics of aphasia. London: Taylor & Francis, 155–177.Google Scholar

Code, Chris. 1994. Modelling aphasic speech automatisms and recurring utterances: Contributions to sonority theory. Journal of Neurolinguistics 8, 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Code, Chris, 1996. Speech from the isolated right hemisphere? Left hemispherectomy cases E.G. and N.F. In Code, Chris, Wallesch, Claus-W., Joanette, Yves, Lecours, André Roch (eds.), Classic cases in neuropsychology. Vol. 1. Hove: Psychology Press, 319–336.Google Scholar

Code, Chris. 1997. Can the right hemisphere speak? Brain and Language 57, 38–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Code, Chris. 2005. First in, last out? The evolution of aphasic lexical speech automatisms to agrammatism and the evolution of human communication. Interaction Studies 6, 311–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coulmas, Florian. 1981. Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Thompson, Sandra A.. 2000. Concessive patterns in conversation. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast. Cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 381–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Thompson, Sandra A. 2005. A linguistic practice for retracting overstatements: ‘Concessive Repair’. In Hakulinen, Auli & Selting, Margret (eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 257–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Ono, Tsuyoshi. 2007. Increments in cross-linguistic perspective: Introductory remarks. Special issue of Pragmatics 17 (4), 505–512.Google Scholar

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

Cowan, Nelson. 2001. The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24, 87–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change. An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cuc, Alexandru, Ozuru, Yasuhiro, Manier, David & Hirst, William. 2006. On the formation of collective memories: the role of a dominant narrator. Memory & Cognition 34 (4), 752–762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cuenca, Maria Josep. 2013. The fuzzy boundaries between discourse marking and modal marking. In Degand, Liesbeth, Pietrandrea, Paola & Cornillie, Bert (eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cutica, Ilaria, Bucciarelli, Monica & Bara, Bruno G.. 2006. Neuropragmatics: Extralinguistic pragmatic ability is better preserved in left-hemisphere-damaged patients than in right hemisphere-damaged patients. Brain and Language 98 (1), 12–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dąbrowska, Eva. 1997. The LAD goes to school: a cautionary tale for nativists. Linguistics 35, 736–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dancygier, Barbara & Sweetser, Eve. 1997. ‘Then’ in conditional constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 8 (2), 109–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Danon-Boileau, Laurent, Meunier, Annie, Morel, Mary-Annick & Tournandre, Nicolas. 1991. Intégration discursive et intégration syntaxique. Langages 104, 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Darden, Lindley & Maull, Nancy. 1977. Interfield theories. Philosophy of Science 44, 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Defour, Tine & Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2010. “Positive appraisal” as a core meaning of well: A corpus-based analysis in Middle and Early Modern English data. English Studies 91 (6), 643–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Degand, Liesbeth & Fagard, Benjamin. 2011. ‘Alors’ between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language 18 (1), 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Degand, Liesbeth, Cornillie, Bert & Pietrandrea, Paola (eds.). 2013. Discourse markers and modal particles. Categorization and description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dehé, Nicole. 2007. The relation between syntactic and prosodic parenthesis. In Dehé, Nicole & Kavalova, Yordanka (eds.), Parentheticals. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dehé, Nicole. 2009. Clausal parentheticals, intonational phrasing, and prosodic theory. Journal of Linguistics 45 (3), 569–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dehé, Nicole. 2014. Parentheticals in spoken English: The syntax-prosody relation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dehé, Nicole. 2016. The prosodic phrasing of parenthetical comment clauses in spontaneous spoken language: Evidence from Icelandic ‘held ég’. Studia Linguistica, online early view. Available at: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-9582 (last access June 28, 2017).Google Scholar

Dehé, Nicole & Braun, Bettina. 2013. The prosody of question tags in English. English Language & Linguistics 17 (1), 129–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dehé, Nicole & Kavalova, Yordanka. 2006. The syntax, pragmatics and prosody of parenthetical ‘what’. English Language and Linguistics 10 (2), 289–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dehé, Nicole & Wichmann, Anne. 2010a. The multifunctionality of epistemic parentheticals in discourse: prosodic cues to the semantic-pragmatic boundary. Functions of Language 17 (1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dehé, Nicole & Wichmann, Anne. 2010b. Sentence-initial I think (that) and I believe (that): Prosodic evidence for use as main clause, comment clause and discourse marker. Studies in Language 34 (1), 36–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dehé, Nicole, Feldhausen, Ingo & Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.). 2011. New insights into the prosody–syntax interface: focus, phrasing, language evolution; Special issue of Lingua 121 (13), 1863–2034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Deppermann, Arnulf. 2012. Über Sätze in Gesprächsbeiträgen – wann sie beginnen und wann man sie braucht. In Cortès, Colette (ed.), Satzeröffnung. Formen, Funktionen, Strategien. In collaboration with Behr, Irmtraud, Dalmas, Martine, Larrory- Wunder, Anne, Marschall, Gottfried & Sauerwein, Sibylle. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 1–14.Google Scholar

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

Deppermann, Arnulf & Günthner, Susanne (eds.) 2015. Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Smedt, Koenraad. 1990. IPF: An incremental parallel formulator. In Dale, Robert, Mellish, Chris & Zock, Michael (eds.), Current research in natural language generation. London: Academic Press, 167–192.Google Scholar

Detges, Ulrich & Waltereit, Richard. 2014. ‘Moi je ne sais pas vs. Je ne sais pas moi’: French disjoint pronouns in the left vs. right periphery. In Beeching, Kate & Detges, Ulrich (eds.), Discourse functions at the right and left periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Leiden: Brill, 24–46.Google Scholar

Devinsky, Orrin. 2000. Right cerebral hemisphere dominance for a sense of corporeal and emotional self. Epilepsy and Behavior 1 (1), 60–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diewald, Gabriele. 2006. Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Fischer, Kerstin (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 403–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Diewald, Gabriele. 2013. ‘Same same but different’ – Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In Degand, Liesbeth, Cornillie, Bert & Pietrandrea, Paola (eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles. Categorization and description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Dines, Elizabeth R., 1980. Variation in discourse – ‘and stuff like that’. Language in Society 9 (1), 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dipper, Lucy, Bryan, Karen & Tyson, J.. 1997. Bridging inference and relevance theory: an account of right-hemisphere inference. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 11(3), 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Du Bois, John W. & Giora, Rachel. 2014. From cognitive-functional linguistics to dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25 (3), 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duden-Grammatik, . 2009. Die Grammatik. Published by the Dudenredaktion. Mannheim, Wien, Zürich: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar

Edwards, Susan & Knott, Raymond. 1994. Assessing spontaneous language abilities of aphasic speakers. In Graddol, David & Swann, Joan (eds.), Evaluating language. Clevedon, OH: Multilingual Matters, 91–101.Google Scholar

Eisenberg, Peter. 2006. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Vol. 2: Der Satz. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick. 2015. Implicit AND explicit language learning: their dynamic interface and complexity. In Rebuschat, Patrick (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3–23.Google Scholar

Enkvist, Nils Erik & Wårvik, Brita. 1987. Old English þa, temporal chains, and narrative structure. In Ramat, Anna Giacalone, Carruba, Onofrio & Bernini, Giuliano (eds.), Papers from the 7^th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 221–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ericsson, K. Anders & Kintsch, Walter. 1995. Long-term working memory. Psychological Review 102 (2), 211–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Erman, Britt. 1995. Grammaticalization in progress: The case of ‘or something’. In Moen, Inger, Simonsen, Hanne G. & Lødrup, Helge (eds.), Papers from the fifteenth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Oslo 13–15 January 1995. Oslo: Department of Linguistics, University of Oslo, 136–147.Google Scholar

Erman, Britt & Warren, Beatrice. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20, 29–62.Google Scholar

Fabbro, Franco. 1999. The neurolinguistics of bilingualism: An introduction. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Fernandez-Vest, Jocelyne M. M. 2015. Detachments for cohesion. Berlin: De Gryuter Mouton.Google Scholar

Ferreira, Victor S. 1996. Is it better to give than to donate? Syntactic flexibility in language production. Journal of Memory & Language 35, 724–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ferreira, Victor S. & Dell, Gary S.. 2000. Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 40, 296–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ferreira, Fernanda. 2005. Psycholinguistics, formal grammars, and cognitive science. The Linguistic Review 22, 365–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ferreira, Fernandes & Bailey, Karl G. D.. 2004. Disfluencies and human language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8, 231–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon. 2004. Euclidean distance between syntactically linked words. Physical Review E 70 (1), 056135.Google ScholarPubMed

Fiebach, Christian J., Friederici, Angela, Müller, Karsten & von Cramon, D. Yves. 2002. fMRI evidence for dual routes to the mental lexicon in visual word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neurosciences 14 (1), 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fiebach, Christian J., Schlesewsky, Matthias, Lohmann, Gabriele, von Cramon, D. Yves & Friederici, Angela. 2005. Revisiting the role of Broca’s area in sentence processing: syntactic integration versus syntactic working memory. Human Brain Mapping 24, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Fischer, Kerstin. 2000. From cognitive semantics to lexical pragmatics: The functional polysemy of discourse particles. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fischer, Kerstin (ed.). 2006. Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ford, Marilyn & Holmes, Virginia A.. 1978. Planning units and syntax in sentence production. Cognition 6, 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ford, Cecilia & Thompson, Sandra. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 134–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox, Barbara A. & Thompson, Sandra A.. 2007. Relative clauses in English conversation. Relativizers, frequency, and the notion of construction. Studies in Language 31 (2), 293–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox Tree, Jean & Meijer, Paul J. A.. 1999. Building syntactic structure in speaking. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28, 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Franck, Dorothea. 1985. Sentences in conversational turns: A case of syntactic ‘double blind’. In Dascal, Marcelo (ed.), Dialogue. An interdisciplinary approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6 (2), 167–190.Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31 (7), 931–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Friederici, Angela. 2002. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6, 78–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Friederici, Angela. 2004. The neural basis of syntactic processes. In Gazzaniga, Michael S. (ed.), The cognitive neurosciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 789–801.Google Scholar

Friederici, Angela. 2012. The cortical language circuit: From auditory perception to sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16, 262–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Friederici, Angela & Alter, Kai. 2004. Lateralization of auditory language functions: A dynamic dual pathway model. Brain and Language 89 (2), 267–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Friederici, Angela, Rüschemeyer, Shirley-Ann, Hahne, Anja & Fiebach, Christian J.. 2003. The role of left inferior frontal and superior temporal cortex in sentence comprehension: localizing syntactic and semantic processes. Cerebral Cortex 13, 170–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Friederici, Angela, Bahlmann, Jörg, Heim, Stefan, Schubotz, Ricarda & Anwander, Alfred. 2006. The brain differentiates human and non-human grammars: Functional localization and structural connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 (7), 2458–2463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gardner, Rod. 2005. Conversation Analysis. In Davies, Alan & Elder, Catherine (eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 262–284.Google Scholar

Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliff, NY: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Garrett, M.F. 1980. Levels of processing in sentence production. In Butterworth, Brian (ed.), Language production, Vol. 1. London: Academic Press, 177–220.Google Scholar

Geluykens, Ronald. 1992. From discourse process to grammatical construction. On left-dislocation in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68, 1–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gibson, Edward. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Miyashita, Yasushi, Marantz, Alec & O’Neill, Wayne (eds.), Image, Language, Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 95–126.Google Scholar

Gibson, Edward & Perlmutter, Neal J.. 1998. Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2, 262–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Giddens, Anthony. 1993. New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative sociologies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Gildea, Daniel & Temperley, David. 2010. Do grammars minimize dependency length? Cognitive Sciences 34 (2), 286–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction ritual: essays in face to face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1978. Response cries. Language 54 (4), 787–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1981. Radio talk. In Goffman, Erving (ed.), Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 197–327.Google Scholar

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

Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goldinger, Stephen D. 1998. Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical acces. Psychological Review 105, 251–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldman-Eisler, Frieda. 1968. Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Goldman-Rakic, Patricia S. 1996. The prefrontal landscape: implications of functional architecture for understanding human mentation and the central executive. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 351, 1445–1453.Google ScholarPubMed

Goodglass, Harold. 1993. Understanding Aphasia. New York: Academic Press.Google ScholarPubMed

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

Goodwin, Charles. 1980. Restarts, pauses and the achievement of mutual gaze at turn beginning. Sociological Inquiry 50, 272–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gordon, Barry. 1997. Neuropsychology and advances in memory function. Current Opinion in Neurology 10, 306–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Grice, Herbert P. 1969. Utterer’s meaning and intentions. Philosophical Review 78, 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Griffin, Richard, Friedman, Ori, Ween, Jon, Winner, Ellen, Happé, Francesca & Brownell, Hiram. 2006. Theory of mind and the right cerebral hemisphere: refining the scope of impairment. Laterality 11, 195–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Grimaldi, Mirko. 2012. Toward a neural theory of language: Old issues and new perspectives. Journal of Neurolinguistics 25, 304–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grodzinsky, Yosef & Friederici, Angela D.. 2006. Neuroimaging of syntax and syntactic processing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 16, 240–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Günthner, Susanne. 1999. Entwickelt sich der Konzessivmarker obwohl zum Diskursmarker? Grammatikalisierungstendenzen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Linguistische Berichte 180, 409–446.Google Scholar

Günthner, Susanne. 2008. ‘Die Sache ist … ’: eine Projektorkonstruktion im gesprochenen Deutsch. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27 (1), 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Günthner, Susanne. 2011. Between emergence and sedimentation: Projecting constructions in German interaction. In Auer, Peter & Pfänder, Stefan (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 156–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haegemann, Liliane. 1991. Parenthetical adverbials: the radical orphanage approach. In Chiba, Shuki, Ogawa, Akira, Fuiwara, Yasuaki, Yamada, Norio, Koma, Osamu & Yagi, Takao (eds.), Aspects of modern English linguistics: Papers presented to Masatomo Ukaji on his 60th Birthday. Tokio: Kaitakusha, 232–254.Google Scholar

Haiman, John. 1994. Ritualization and the development of language. In Pagliuca, William (ed.), Perspective on grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hale, John. 2006. Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science 30 (4), 643–672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Halliday, M.A.K. 1989. Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Halliday, M.A.K. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. Revised by Matthiesen, Christian M.I.M.. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Hancil, Sylvie. 2015. The grammaticalization of final but: From conjunction to final particle. In Hancil, Sylvie, Haselow, Alexander & Post, Margje (eds.). Final particles. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hancil, Sylvie, Haselow, Alexander & Post, Margje (eds.). 2015. Final particles. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Happé, Francesca, Brownell, Hiram & Winner, Ellen. 1999. Acquired “theory of mind” impairments following stroke. Cognition 70, 211–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Harris, Roy. 2012. Integrationist notes and papers 2012. Gamingley: Bright Pen.Google Scholar

Haselow, Alexander. 2011. Discourse marker and modal particle: The functions of utterance- final then in spoken English: Journal of Pragmatics 43 (14), 3603–3623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Haselow, Alexander. 2012b. Discourse organization and the rise of final then in the history of English. In Hegedüs, Irén & Fodor, Alexandra (eds.), English historical linguistics 2010: Selected papers from the sixteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL-16), Pécs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 153–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haselow, Alexander. 2013. Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica 47 (2), 375–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haselow, Alexander. 2014. Sequentiality in dialogue as a trigger for grammaticalization. In Hancil, Sylvie & König, Ekkehard (eds.), Grammaticalization – Theory and data. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 203–233.Google Scholar

Haselow, Alexander. 2015a. Left vs. right periphery in grammaticalization: The case of anyway. In Smith, Andrew, Trousdale, Graeme & Waltereit, Richard (eds.), New directions in grammaticalization research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 157–186.Google Scholar

Haselow, Alexander. 2015b. Final particles in spoken German. In Hancil, Sylvie, Haselow, Alexander & Post, Margje (eds.), Final particles. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 77–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haselow, Alexander. 2016a. Intensifying adverbs ‘outside the clause’. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien & Lohmann, Arne (eds.), Outside the clause – Form and function of extra-clausal constituents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 379–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haselow, Alexander. 2016b. A processual view on grammar: Macrogrammar and the final field in spoken syntax. Language Sciences 54, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hawkins, John. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hawkins, John. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heim, Stefan, Alter, Kai, Ischebeck, Anja K., Amunts, Katrin, Eickhoff, Simon B., Mohlberg, Hartmut, Zilles, Karl, von Cramon, D. Yves & Friderici, Angela. 2005. The role of the left Brodman’s areas 44 and 45 in reading words and pseudowords. Cognitive Brain Research 25 (3), 982–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 2012. On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51 (6), 1205–1247.Google Scholar

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

Heine, Bernd, Kuteva, Tania, Kaltenböck, Gunther & Long, Haiping. 2015. On some correlations between grammar and brain lateralization. Oxford Handbooks Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (www.oxfordhandbooks.com)Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2013. Turn-initial position and some of its occupants. Journal of Pragmatics 57, 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heritage, John & Atkinson, J. Maxwell. 1984. Introduction. In Heritage, John & Atkinson, J. Maxwell (eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–15.Google Scholar

Hickok, Gregory & Poeppel, David. 2004. Dorsal and ventral streams: a framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language. Cognition 92 (1–2), 67–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hickok, Greogory & Poeppel, David. 2007. The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 8 (5), 393–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Walther, Himmelmann, Nikolaus & Wiemer, Björn (eds), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hiranuma, So. 1999. Syntactic difficulty in English and Japanese: A textual study. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11, 309–322.Google Scholar

Hird, Kathryn & Kirsner, Kim. 2003. The effect of right cerebral hemisphere damage on collaborative planning in conversation: An analysis of intentional structure. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 17 (4–5), 309–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hockett, Charles F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203, 89–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Höhle, Tilman N. 1986. Der Begriff ‘Mittelfeld’. Anmerkungen über die Theorie der topologischen Felder. In Weiss, Walter E., Wiegand, Herbert E. & Reis, Marga (eds.), Textlinguistik contra Stilistik. Akten des V. Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses Göttingen, Bd. 3. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 329–340.Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet. 1983. The functions of tag questions. English Language Research Journal 3, 40–65.Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet. 1988. Of course: A pragmatic particle in New Zealand woman’s and men’s speech. Australian Journal of Linguistics 2, 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, Paul. J. 1987. Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13, 139–157.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1998. Emergent Grammar. In Tomasello, Michael (ed.), The new psychology of language. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, 155–175.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 2001. Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: prototype or family resemblance? In Pütz, Martin, Niemeier, Susanne & Dirven, René (eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition. Berlin: De Gruyter, 109–129.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul. J. 2004. The openness of grammatical constructions. Chicago Linguistic Society 40, 239–256.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J., 2011. Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In Auer, Peter & Pfänder, Stefan (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 22–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 2015. Temporality and the emergence of a construction: a discourse approach to sluicing. In Deppermann, Arnulf & Günthner, Susanne (eds.), Temporality in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 123–146.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A.. 2008. Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Laury, Ritva (ed.), Cross-Linguistic studies of clause combining. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 99–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hough, Monica S. 1990. Narrative comprehension in adults with right and left hemisphere brain damage: Theme organization. Brain and Language 38, 253–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. Language description: The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

ICE-GB = International Corpus of English – Great Britain, Realease 2, 2006. Survey of English Usage, University College London, London (CD Rom).Google Scholar

Imo, Wolfgang. 2015. Temporality and syntactic structure – Utterance-final intensifiers in spoken German. In Deppermann, Arnulf & Günthner, Susanne (eds.), Temporality in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 147–171.Google Scholar

Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita & Izutsu, Katsunobu. 2014. Final hanging but in American English. Where a formal coordinator meets a functional subordinator. In Hancil, Sylvie & König, Ekkehard (eds.), Grammaticalization – Theory and data. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 257–285.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1995. The boundaries of the lexicon. In Everaert, Martin, van der Linden, Erik-Jan, Schenk, André & Schreuder, Rob (eds.), Idioms. Structural and psychological perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 133–169.Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1980. The framework of language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 1973. A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: overlapped, tag positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica 9 (1), 47–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 1984. Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. In D’Urso, Valtentina & Leonardi, Paolo (eds.), Discourse analysis and natural rhetoric. Padua: Cleup Editore, 11–38.Google Scholar

Jiang, Jingyang & Liu, Haitao. 2015. The effects of sentence length on dependency distance, dependency direction and the implications – Based on a parallel English Chinese dependency treebank. Language Sciences 50, 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joseph, Rhawn. 1990. Neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology and behavioral neurology. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. 1993. The discourse marker ‘well’: a relevance theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19 (5), 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. & Smith, Sara W.. 1998. And people just you know like ‘wow’ – Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In Jucker, Andreas H. & Ziv, Yael (eds.), Discourse markers. Theory and descriptions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. & Ziv, Yael (eds). 1998. Discourse markers. Theory and descriptions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Just, Marcel A. & Carpenter, Patricia A.. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review 99 (1), 122–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2008. ‘Prosody and function of English comment clauses.’ Folia Linguistica 42 (1), 83–134.Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2013. Development of comment clauses. In Aarts, Bas, Close, Joanne, Leech, Geoffrey & Wallis, Sean (eds.), The English verb phrase: investigating recent change with corpora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 286–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2016. On the grammatical status of insubordinate if-clauses. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien & Lohmann, Arne (eds.), Outside the clause – Form and function of extra-clausal constituents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 341–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35, 852–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien & Lohmann, Arne. 2016. Extra-clausal constituents. An overview. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien & Lohmann, Arne (eds.). Outside the clause – Form and function of extra-clausal constituents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kamide, Yuki, Altmann, Gerry T. & Haywood, Sarah L.. 2003. The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 49 (1), 133–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Karlsson, Fred. 2007a. Constraints on multiple initial embedding of clauses. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12 (1), 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Karlsson, Fred. 2007b. Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses. Journal of Linguistics 43 (2), 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kim, Min-Joo & Jahnke, Nathan. 2011. The meaning of utterance-final even. Journal of English Linguistics 39, 36–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kind, Walther. 1994. Satzbegriff und gesprochene Sprache. Lingua 94, 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kjellmer, Göran. 2003. Hesitation. English Studies 84 (2), 170–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koelsch, Stefan, Schulze, Katrin, Sammler, Daniela, Fritz, Thomas, Müller, Karsten & Gruber, Oliver. 2009. Functional architecture of verbal and tonal working memory: an fMRI study. Human Brain Mapping 30 (3), 859–873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Krug, Manfred. 1998. British English is developing a new discourse marker, innit?: A Study in lexicalisation based on social, regional and stylistic variation. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 23, 145–197.Google Scholar

Lamandella, John T. 1977. The limbic system in human communication. In Whitaker, Haiganoosh & Whitaker, Harry A. (eds.), Studies in neurolinguistics. Vol. 3. London: Academic Press, 157–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud. 2001. Dislocation. In Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf & Raible, Wolfgang (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook. Vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1050–1078.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lee, Namhee, Mikesell, Lisa, Joaquin, Anna Dina L., Mates, Andrea W. & Schuman, John H.. 2009. The interactional instinct. The evolution and acquisition of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Lehman Blake, Margaret. 2006. Clinical relevance of discourse characteristics after right hemisphere brain damage. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 15 (3), 255–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lehman Blake, Margaret. 2010. Communication deficits associated with right hemisphere brain damage. In Damico, Jack S., Muller, Nicole, and Ball, Martin J. (eds.), The handbook of language and speech disorders. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 556–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lenk, Uta. 1998. Marking discourse coherence: Functions of discourse markers in spoken English. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and rhetoric. Adverbial connectors in the history of English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lerner, Gene. 1996. On the ‘semi-permeable’ character of grammatical units in conversation. Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 238–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lerner, Gene. 2004. Collaborative turn sequences. In Lerner, Gene (ed.), Conversation analysis. Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 225–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leslie, Alan M. 1987. Pretense and representation: The origins of “theory of mind”. Psychological Review 94 (4), 412–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levelt, William J. M. 1999. Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In Brown, Colin M. & Hagoort, Peter (eds.), The neurocognition of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 83–122.Google Scholar

Lewis, Diana. 2002. Rhetorical motivations for the emergence of discourse particles, with special reference to English of course. In van der Wouden, Ton, Foolen, Ad & van de Craen, Piet (eds.), Particles. Special issue of Belgian Journal of Linguistics 16, 79–91.Google Scholar

Levy, Roger. 2011. Probabilistic linguistic expectations, uncertain input, and implications for eye movements in reading. Studies of Psychology and Behavior 9 (1), 53–64.Google Scholar

Lindström, Anna. 2009. Projecting nonalignment in conversation. In Sidnell, Jack (ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Linell, Per. 1998. Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Linell, Per. 2005. The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Linell, Per. 2009. Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Linell, Per. 2014. Interactivities, intersubjectivities and language. On dialogism and phenomenology. Language & Dialogue 4 (2), 165–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Liu, Haitao. 2008. Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. Journal of Cognitive Sciences 9 (2), 159–191.Google Scholar

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

Luck, Steven J. & Vogel, Edward K.. 1997. The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature 390, 279–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mackenzie, Catherine & Brady, Marian. 2008. Communication difficulties following right hemisphere stroke: applying evidence to clinical management. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention 2 (4), 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maclay, Howard & Osgood, Charles E.. 1959. Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word 15, 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mandler, George. 1975. Memory storage and retrieval: some limits on the reach of attention and consciousness. In Rabbit, Patrick M.A. & Dornic, Stanislav (eds.), Attention and performance V. New York: Academic Press, 150–162.Google Scholar

Mandler, George. 1985. Cognitive psychology: An essay in cognitive science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Marini, Andrea. 2012. Characteristics of narrative discourse processing after damage to the right hemisphere. Seminars in Speech and Language 33 (1), 68–78.Google Scholar

Marini, Andrea, Carlomagno, Sergio, Caltagirone, Carlo & Nocentini, Ugo. 2005. The role played by the RH in the organization of complex textual structures. Brain and Language 93, 46–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marshall, Robert C. 2000. Speech fluency and aphasia. In Riggenbach, Heidi (ed.), Perspectives on fluency. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 74–88.Google Scholar

Marslen-Wilson, William & Tyler, Lorraine Komisarjevsky. 1980. The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition 8, 1–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Martin, Randi C. & Freedman, Monica. 2001. Short-term retention of lexical-semantic representations: implications for speech production. Memory 9 (4–6), 261–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mashal, Nira, Borodkin, Katy, Maliniak, Omer & Faust, Miriam. 2015. Hemispheric involvement in native and non-native comprehension of conventional metaphors. Journal of Neurolinguistics 35, 96–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian & Thompson, Sandra A.. 1988. The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’. In Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 275–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, Michael & Carter, Ronald. 2001. Ten criteria for a spoken grammar. In Hinkel, Eli & Fotos, Sandra (eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 51–75.Google Scholar

McDermott, Kathleen B., Petersen, Steven E., Watson, Jason M. & Ojemann, Jeffrey G.. 2003. A procedure for identifying regions preferentially activated by attention to semantic and phonological relations using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neuropsychologia 41 (3), 293–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

McDonald, Skye. 1999. Exploring the process of inference generation in sarcasm: a review of normal and clinical studies. Brain and Language 68 (3), 486–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Merchant, Jason. 2005. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (6), 661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, George A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63 (2), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Miller, Jim & Weinert, Regina. 2009 [1998]. Spontaneous spoken language. Syntax and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mitchell, Rachel L. C. & Crow, Tim J.. 2005. Right hemisphere language functions and schizophrenia: The forgotten hemisphere? Brain 128 (5), 963–978.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mondada, Lorenza. 1995. La construction interactionelle du topic. In Mondada, Lorenza (ed.), Actes du colloque Formes linguistiques er dynamiques interactionelles. Cahiers de l’ILSL 7, Université de Lausanne, 111–136.Google Scholar

Mondada, Lorenza. 2009. Emergent focused interactions in public spaces: a systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics 41 (10), 1977–1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moon, Rosamund E. 1998. Fixed expressions and text: A study of the distribution and textual behavior of fixed expressions in English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Morel, Mary-Annick. 2007. Le postrhème dans le dialogue oral en français. L’information grammaticale 113, 40–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mulder, Jean & Thompson, Sandra A.. 2008. The grammaticization of ‘but’ as a final particle in English conversation. In Laury, Ritva (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 179–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Muller, Felipe & Hirst, William. 2010. Resistance to the influences of others: limits to the formation of a collective memory through conversational remembering. Applied Cognitive Psychology 24 (5), 608–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Musso, Mariacristina, Moro, Andrea, Glauche, Volkmar, Rijntjes, Michel, Reichenbach, Jürgen, Büchel, Christian & Weiler, Cornelius. 2003. Broca’s area and the language instinct. Nature Neuroscience 6 (7), 774–781.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Myers, Penelope S. 1994. Communication disorders associated with right-hemisphere brain damage. In Chapey, Roberta (ed.), Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders (third edition). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 514–534.Google Scholar

Myers, Penelope S. 1999. Right hemisphere damage: Disorders of communication and cognition. San Diego, CA: Singular.Google Scholar

Myers, Penelope S. & Lehman Blake, Margaret. 2008. Communication disorders associated with right hemisphere damage. In Chapey, Roberta (Ed.), Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders (fifth edition). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 963–987.Google Scholar

Nairne, James S. 1990. A feature model of immediate memory. Memory & Cognition 18 (3), 251–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Neath, Ian. 2000. Modeling the effects of irrelevant speech on memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 7 (3), 403–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nefdt, Ryan M. 2016. Linguistic modelling and the scientific enterprise. Language Sciences 54, 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Neininger, Bettina & Pulvermüller, Friedemann. 2003. Word-category specific deficits after lesions in the right hemisphere. Neuropsychologia 41 (1), 53–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nelson, Gerald, Wallis, Sean & Aarts, Bas. 2002. Exploring natural language. Working with the British component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2015. Parentheticals and the grammar of complementation. In Schneider, Stefan, Glikman, Julie & Mathieu Avanzi, M. (eds.), Parenthetical verbs. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 13–38.Google Scholar

Norén, Niklas. 2013. Pivot constructions as methods for perspective shift during turns at talk. Journal of Pragmatics 54 (1), 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic modality, language and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Oberauer, Klaus & Kliegl, Reinhold. 2006. A formal model of capacity limits in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 55 (4), 601–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Okada, Rieko, Okuda, Takeshi, Nakano, Naoki, Nishimatsu, Kazuhiko, Fukushima, Hiroyuki et al. 2013. Brain areas associated with sentence processing: A functional MRI study and a lesion study. Journal of Neurolinguistics 26, 470–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ouden, Dirk Bart den, Fix, Stephen, Parrish, Todd B. & Thompson, Cynthia K.. 2009. Argument structure effects in action verb naming in static and dynamic conditions. Journal of Neurolinguistics 22, 196–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Overstreet, Maryann. 1999. Whales, candlelight, and stuff like that. General extenders in English discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Oviatt, Sharon. 1995. Predicting spoken disfluencies during human–computer interaction. Computer Speech and Language 9, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paltridge, Brian. 2006. Discourse analysis. An introduction. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Parola, Alberto, Gabbatore, Ilaria, Bosco, Francesca M., Bara, Bruno G., Cossa, Frederico M., Gindri, Patrizia & Sacco, Katiuscia. 2016. Assessment of pragmatic impairment in right hemisphere damage. Journal of Neurolinguistics 39 (1), 10–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2011. Emergent grammar for all practical purposes: The on-line formatting of left and right dislocations in French conversation. In Auer, Peter & Pfänder, Stefan (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 45–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Phillips, Colin. 2003. Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 37–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pichler, Heike. 2013. The structure of discourse-pragmatic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pichler, Heike & Levey, Stephen. 2011. In search of grammaticalization in synchronic dialect data: General extenders in Northeast England. English Language & Linguistics 15 (3), 441–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pickering, Martin J. & Garrod, Simon. 2007. Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (3), 105–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pierrehumbert, Janet & Hirschberg, Julia. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours and the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, Philip R., Morgan, Jerry & Pollack, Martha E. (eds.), Intentions in communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 271–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pomeranz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Maxwell Atkison, J. & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–101.Google Scholar

Prat, Chantel S., Long, Debra L. & Baynes, Kathleen. 2007. The representation of discourse in the two hemispheres: An individual differences investigation. Brain and Language 100 (3), 283–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Purdy, Mary H. 2002. Script knowledge following stroke. Journal of Medical Speech Language Pathology 10 (3), 173–181.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Ramscar, Michael & Port, Robert F.. 2016. How spoken languages work in the absence of an inventory of discrete units. Language Sciences 53, 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rinaldi, Maria C., Marangolo, Paola, Baldassarri, Francesca. 2004. Metaphor comprehension in right brain-damaged patients with visuo-verbal and verbal material: A dissociation (re)considered. Cortex 40, 479–490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rogalsky, Corianne, Matchin, William & Hickok, Gregory. 2008. Broca’s area, sentence comprehension, and working memory: an fMRI study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9. (http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.014.2008)Google Scholar

Sabbagh, Mark A. 1999. Communicative intentions and language: evidence from right hemisphere damage and autism. Brain and Language 70 (1), 29–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sacks, Harvey. 1984. Notes on methodology. In Atkinson, John & Heritage, J. Maxwell (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 21–27.Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation. Volume I. ed. by Jefferson, Gail, with Introductions by Schegloff, Emanuel A.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey. 1995. Lectures on conversation. Volume II. ed. by Jefferson, Gail & Schegloff, Emanuel A.. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Jefferson, Gail. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Saffran, Jenny R., Aslin, Richard N. & Newport, Elissa L.. 1996. Statistical learning by 8- month- old infants. Science 274, 1926–1928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Saffran, Jenny R., Johnson, Elizabeth K., Aslin, Richard N. & Newport, Elissa L.. 1999. Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants and adults. Cognition 70 (1), 27–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sakai, Katsuyuki, Kitaguchi, Katsuya & Hikosaka, Okihide. 2003. Chunking during human visuomotor sequence learning. Experimental Brain Research 152, 229–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Santi, Andrea & Grodzinsky, Yosef. 2010. fMRI adaptation dissociates syntactic complexity dimensions. NeuroImage 51, 1285–1293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Scarborough, Don L. 1972. Memory for brief visual displays. Cognitive Psychology 3 (3), 408–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1987. Recycled turn-beginnings: a precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organization. In Button, Graham & Lee, John R.E. (eds.), Talk and social organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1988. Presequences and indirection: Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 12, 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 52–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997. Practices and actions: boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23, 499–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Sacks, Harvey. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica VIII (4), 289–327.Google Scholar

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schneider, Ulrike. 2014. Frequency, hesitations and chunks. A usage-based study of chunking in English. Freiburg: NIHIN Studies. http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/9793/Google Scholar

Schourup, Lawrence. 1985. Common discourse particles in English conversation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Schriefers, Herbert, Teruel, E. & Meinshousen, R. M.. 1998. Producing simple sentences: Results from picture-word interference experiments. Journal of Memory and Language 39, 609–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sebeok, Thomas A. 1972. Perspectives in zoosemiotics. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Selting, Margret. 1996. On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the constitution of turn constructional units and turn in conversation. Pragmatics 6 (3), 357–388.Google Scholar

Selting, Margret. 1997. Sogenannte ‘Ellipsen’ als interaktiv relevante Konstruktionen? Ein neuer Versuch über die Reichweite und Grenzen des Ellipsenbegriffs für die Analyse gesprochener Sprache in der konversationellen Interaktion. In Schlobinsky, Peter (ed.), Syntax des gesprochenen Deutsch. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 117–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Selting, Margret. 2000. The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society 29, 477–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Selting, Margret. 2001. Fragments of units as deviant cases of unit-production in conversational talk. In Selting, Margret & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amstderdam: John Benjamins, 229–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sherratt, Sue. 2007. Right brain damage and the verbal expression of emotion: a preliminary investigation. Aphasiology 21 (3/4), 320–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sherrat, Sue & Penn, Claire. 1990. Discourse in a right-hemisphere brain-damaged subject. Aphasiology 4 (6), 539–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sherratt, Sue & Bryan, Karen. 2012. Discourse production after right brain damage: Gaining a comprehensive picture using a multi-level processing model. Journal of Neurolinguistics 25 (4), 213–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shields, Jane. 1991. Semantic-pragmatic disorder: A right hemisphere syndrome? British Journal of Disorders of Communication 26 (3), 383–392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Shriberg, Elizabeth. 1996. Disfluencies in Switchboard. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing 96. Philadelphia: Addendum, 11–14.Google Scholar

Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation analysis. An introduction. Malden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell.Google Scholar

Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & Aijmer, Karin. 2002. The expectation marker ‘of course’. Languages in Contrast 4, 13–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sinclair, John & Mauranen, Anna. 2006. Linear unit grammar. Integrating speech and writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Singer, Wolf. 2009. Distributed processing and temporal codes in neuronal networks. Cognitive Neurodynamics 3 (3), 189–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Smith, Aaron. 1966. Speech and other functions after left (dominant) hemispherectomy. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 29, 467–471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Snijders, Tineke M., Vosse, Theo, Kempen, Gerard, van Berkum, Jos A., Petersson, Karl Magnus & Hagoort, Peter. 2009. Retrieval and unification of syntactic structure in sentence comprehension: an fMRI study using word category ambiguity. Cerebral Cortex 19 (7), 1493–1503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Speedie, Lynn J., Wertmann, Eliahu, Ta’ir, Judy & Heilman, Kenneth M.. 1993. Disruption of automatic speech following a right basal ganglia lesion. Neurology 43, 1768–1774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

St. George, Marie, Kutas, Marta, Martinez, Antigona & Sereno, Martin I.. 1999. Semantic integration in reading: Engagement of the RH during discourse processing. Brain 122, 1317–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar