1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Revisiting Sentence Adverbials and Relevance

Revisiting Sentence Adverbials and Relevance

image of Revisiting Sentence Adverbials and Relevance
USD
Buy:$143.00 + Taxes

This book offers a fresh take on several long-standing issues relating to the (non-)truth-conditional interpretation of epistemic, evidential, hearsay and attitudinal sentence adverbials. Drawing on a wealth of data from English and German, it shows for the first time that all four adverbial classes can have both truth-conditional and non-truth-conditional (parenthetical) readings. A novel account is presented according to which (non-)truth-conditional readings may arise at either the syntactic or the pragmatic level. Couched in relevance theory, the book also re-examines the explicature and illocutionary status of the adverbial qualification and the qualified proposition, and refines the notions of pointhood and at-issueness to provide an original information-structural analysis applicable to not just sentence adverbials but a range of other propositional qualifiers. Finally, the investigation identifies five factors affecting (non-)truth-conditional interpretation: linear position, prosody, the semantics of the adverbial, its information-structural properties and the wider context. The book will be of interest to those interested in relevance theory, the semantics/pragmatics interface, the syntax/pragmatics interface and information structure, as well as for syntacticians, semanticists and pragmatists interested in sentence adverbials, other propositional qualifiers and parentheticality, syntactic and interpretational.

References

  1. Ahern, Aoife K. , and Manuel Leonetti
    2004 “The Spanish Subjunctive: Procedural Semantics and Pragmatic Inference.” InCurrent Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish, ed. by Rosina Márquez Reiter , and María E. Placencia , 35–57. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.123.07ahe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.123.07ahe [Google Scholar]
  2. Aijmer, Karin
    2009 “The Pragmatics of Adverbs.” InOne Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English, ed. by Günter Rohdenburg , and Julia Schlüter , 324–340. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511551970.018
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551970.018 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 2018 “Evidentiality: The Framework.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality, ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald , 1–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.34
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.34 [Google Scholar]
  5. Allerton, D. J. , and Alan Cruttenden
    1974 “English Sentence Adverbials: Their Syntax and Their Intonation in British English.” Lingua34 (1): 1–30. 10.1016/0024‑3841(74)90074‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(74)90074-6 [Google Scholar]
  6. Allerton, D. J. , and Allan Cruttenden
    1976 “The Intonation of Medial and Final Sentence Adverbials in British English.” Archivum Linguisticum7293–259.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Allott, Nicholas , and Mark Textor
    2012 “Lexical Pragmatic Adjustment and the Nature of Ad Hoc Concepts.” International Review of Pragmatics4 (3): 185–208. 10.1163/18773109‑00040204
     https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00040204 [Google Scholar]
  8. Altenberg, Bengt
    1987 “Predicting Text Segmentation into Tone Units.” InCorpus Linguistics and Beyond, ed. by Willem Meijs , 49–60. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004483989_009
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004483989_009 [Google Scholar]
  9. 1990 “Automatic Text Segmentation into Tone Units.” InThe London Lund Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research, ed. by Jan Svartvik , 287–323. Lund: Lund University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Amaral, Patricia , Craige Roberts , and E. Allyn Smith
    2007 “Review of ‘The Logic of Conventional Implicature’ by Chris Potts.” Linguistics and Philosophy30 (6): 707–749. 10.1007/s10988‑008‑9025‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9025-2 [Google Scholar]
  11. Andersen, Gisle
    2001 Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach to the Language of Adolescents. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.84
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.84 [Google Scholar]
  12. Anderson, Lloyd B.
    1986 “Evidentials, Paths of Change and Mental Maps: Typologically Regular Asymmetries.” InEvidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. by Wallace L. Chafe , and Johanna Nichols , 273–312. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Ariel, Mira
    2010 Defining Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511777912
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511777912 [Google Scholar]
  14. Astruc-Aguilera, Lluïsa , and Francis Nolan
    2007 “Variation in the Intonation of Sentential Adverbs in English and Catalan.” InTones and Tunes, Vol. 1: Typological Studies in Word and Sentence Prosody, ed. by Tomas Riad , and Carlos Gussenhoven , 233–262. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110207569.233
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110207569.233 [Google Scholar]
  15. Austin, John L.
    1962 How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Bach, Kent , and Robert N. Harnish
    1979 Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Beaver, David I. , Craige Roberts , Mandy Simons , and Judith Tonhauser
    2017 “Questions Under Discussion: Where Information Structure Meets Projective Content.” Annual Review of Linguistics3 (1): 265–284. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011516‑033952
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-033952 [Google Scholar]
  18. Benveniste, Emile
    1958/1971 “Subjectivity in Language.” InProblems in General Linguistics, translated by Mary E. Meek , (pp.223–230). Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Biber, Douglas , Stig Johansson , Geoffrey Leech , Susan Conrad , and Edward Finegan
    1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Biskup, Petr
    2011 Adverbials and the Phase Model. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.177
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.177 [Google Scholar]
  21. Blakemore, Diane
    1987 Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 1988 “‘So’ as a Constraint on Relevance.” InMental Representations, ed. by Ruth Kempson , 183–195. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 1991 “Performatives and Parentheticals.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society91: 197–213. 10.1093/aristotelian/91.1.197
     https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/91.1.197 [Google Scholar]
  24. 1992 Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 1993 “The Relevance of Reformulations.” Language and Literature2 (2): 101–120. 10.1177/096394709300200202
     https://doi.org/10.1177/096394709300200202 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2000 “Indicators and Procedures: Nevertheless and But .” Journal of Linguistics36 (03): 463–486. 10.1017/S0022226700008355
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700008355 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2002 Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486456
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2006 “Divisions of Labour: The Analysis of Parentheticals.” Lingua116 (10): 1670–1687. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.04.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2007a “Constraints, Concepts and Procedural Encoding.” InPragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts , 45–66. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑349‑73908‑0_4
     https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_4 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2007b “‘Or’-Parentheticals, ‘That Is’-Parentheticals and the Pragmatics of Reformulation.” Journal of Linguistics43 (2): 311–339. 10.1017/S0022226707004598
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226707004598 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2009 “Communication and the Representation of Thought: The Use of Audience-Directed Expressions in Free Indirect Thought Representations.” Journal of Linguistics46 (3): 575–599. 10.1017/S0022226709990375
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990375 [Google Scholar]
  32. Blass, Regina
    1990 Relevance Relations in Discourse: A Study with Special Reference to Sissala. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511586293
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511586293 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2000 “Particles, Propositional Attitude and Mutual Manifestness.” InPragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude, ed. by Gisle Andersen , and Torsten Fretheim , 39–52. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.79.03bla
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.79.03bla [Google Scholar]
  34. Bogal-Allbritten, Elizabeth
    2013 “Modification of DPs by Epistemic Modal Adverbs.” InProceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. by Maria Aloni , Michael Franke , and Floris Roelofsen , 51–58. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam. maloni.humanities.uva.nl/AC2013/AC_proceedings.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Bogal-Allbritten, Elizabeth , and Andrew Weir
    2017 “Sentential and Possibly Subsentential Modification: The Ambiguity of Collins Conjunctions.” InNELS 47: Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Vol. 1, ed. by Andrew Lamont , and Katerina Tetzloff , 89–102. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Bolinger, Dwight
    1989 Intonation and Its Uses: Melody in Grammar and Discourse. London/ Melbourne: Edward Arnold. 10.1515/9781503623125
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503623125 [Google Scholar]
  37. Bonami, Olivier , and Danièle Godard
    2007 “Parentheticals in Underspecified Semantics: The Case of Evaluative Adverbs.” Research on Language and Computation5 (4): 391–413. 10.1007/s11168‑007‑9037‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-007-9037-z [Google Scholar]
  38. 2008 “Lexical Semantics and Pragmatics of Evaluative Adverbs.” InAdverbs and Adjectives: Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse, ed. by Louise McNally , and Christopher Kennedy , 274–304. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Bonami, Olivier , Danièle Godard , and Brigitte Kampers-Manhe
    2004 “Adverb Classification.” InHandbook of French Semantics, ed. by Francis Corblin , and Henriëtte de Swart , 143–184. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Breheny, Richard
    2019 “Language Processing, Relevance and Questions.” InRelevance: Pragmatics and Interpretation, ed. by Kate Scott , Robyn Carston , and Billy Clark , 42–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108290593.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108290593.005 [Google Scholar]
  41. Burton-Roberts, Noel
    1999 “Language, Linear Precedence and Parentheticals.” InThe Clause in English: In Honour of Rodney Huddleston, ed. by Peter Collins , and David Lee , 33–52. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.45.05bur
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.45.05bur [Google Scholar]
  42. Carston, Robyn
    1993 “Conjunction, Explanation and Relevance.” Lingua90 (1–2): 27–48. 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90059‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90059-6 [Google Scholar]
  43. 1995 “Quantity Maxims and Generalised Implicature.” Lingua96 (4): 213–244. 10.1016/0024‑3841(95)00016‑S
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(95)00016-S [Google Scholar]
  44. 1998 “The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction: A View from Relevance Theory.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics10: 1–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 2000 “Explicature and Semantics.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics12: 1–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 2002 Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Malden: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2004 “Relevance Theory and the Saying/Implicating Distinction.” InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence R. Horn , and Gregory Ward , 633–656. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 2008 “Linguistic Communication and the Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction.” Synthese165: 321–345. 10.1007/s11229‑007‑9191‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9191-8 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2009 “Relevance Theory: Contextualism or Pragmaticism.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics21: 19–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 2010a “Explicit Communication and ‘Free’ Pragmatic Enrichment.” InExplicit Communication. Essays on Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics, ed. by Belén Soria , and Esther Romero , 217–287. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230292352_14
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230292352_14 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2010b “Lexical Pragmatics, Ad Hoc Concepts and Metaphor: A Relevance Theory Perspective.” Italian Journal of Linguistics22 (1): 153–180.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Carston, Robyn
    2011 “Truth-Conditional Semantics.” InPhilosophical Perspectives for Pragmatics (Handbook of Pragmatic Highlights), ed. by Marina Sbisà , Jan-Ola Östman , and Jef Verschueren , 280–288. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hoph.10.24car
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.10.24car [Google Scholar]
  53. Carston, Robyn
    2012 “Word Meaning and Concept Expressed.” The Linguistic Review29 (4): 607–623. 10.1515/tlr‑2012‑0022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2012-0022 [Google Scholar]
  54. 2013 “Word Meaning, What Is Said, and Explicature.” InWhat Is Said and What Is Not: The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, ed. by Carlo Penco , and Filippo Domaneschi , 175–204. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 2016a “Contextual Adjustment of Meaning.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Semantics, ed. by Nick Riemer , 195–210. Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 2016b “The Heterogeneity of Procedural Meaning.” Lingua175–176: 154–166. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.010 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2019 "Ad Hoc Concepts, Polysemy and the Lexicon." InPragmatics, Relevance and Interpretation, ed. by Kate Scott , Billy Clark , and Robyn Carston , 150--162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108290593.014
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108290593.014 [Google Scholar]
  58. Carston, Robyn , and Alison Hall
    2012 “Implicature and Explicature.” InCognitive Pragmatics, ed. by Hans-Jörg Schmidt , 47–84. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110214215.47
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215.47 [Google Scholar]
  59. Carter, Ronald A. , and Michael M. McCarthy
    2006 Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Cerrudo, Alba
    2016 “Cyclic Transfer in the Derivation of Complete Parenthetical Clauses.” Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics5 (1): 59–85. 10.7557/1.5.1.3742
     https://doi.org/10.7557/1.5.1.3742 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2019 “Discourse Phenomena as a Window to the Interfaces.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics, Special Issue: 203–227. 10.5565/rev/catjl.230
     https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.230 [Google Scholar]
  62. Chafloque, Héctor Velásquez
    2014 A Reduplicative Analysis of Sentence Modal Adverbs in Spanish. University of Southern California, PhD dissertation.
  63. Chomsky, Noam
    2000 “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework.” InStep by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin , David Michaels , and Juan Uriagereka , 89–156. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 2001 “Derivation by Phase.” InKen Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz , 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 2004 “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy.” InStructures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. III, ed. by Adriana Belletti , 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Chomsky, Noam , Ángel J. Gallego , and Dennis Ott
    2019 “Generative Grammar and the Faculty of Language: Insights, Questions, and Challenges.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics, Special Issue: 229–261. 10.5565/rev/catjl.288
     https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.288 [Google Scholar]
  67. Cinque, Guglielmo
    1999 Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 2004 “Issues in Adverbial Syntax.” Lingua114: 683–710. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(03)00048‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00048-2 [Google Scholar]
  69. 2010 The Syntax of Adjectives. A Comparative Study. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014168.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014168.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  70. Clark, Billy
    1991 Relevance Theory and the Semantics of Non-Declarative Sentences. University College London, PhD dissertation.
  71. Clark, Billy
    1993a “Let and Let’s: Procedural Encoding and Explicature.” Lingua90 (1-2) 1993: 173–200. 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90066‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90066-6 [Google Scholar]
  72. Clark, Billy
    1993b “Relevance and ‘Pseudo-Imperatives.’” Linguistics and Philosophy16 (1): 79–121. 10.1007/BF00984723
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00984723 [Google Scholar]
  73. 2013 Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139034104
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139034104 [Google Scholar]
  74. Clifton Jr, Charles , and Lyn Frazier
    2012 “Discourse Integration Guided by the ‘Question under Discussion.’” Cognitive Psychology65 (2): 352–379. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.04.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  75. d’Avis, Franz J.
    2004 “In front of the Prefield – inside or outside the Clause?” InThe Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery, ed. by Horst Lohnstein , and Susanne Trissler , 139–178. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110912111.139
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110912111.139 [Google Scholar]
  76. Davies, Mark
    2008– The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): One Billion Words, 1990–2019. https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/
     [Google Scholar]
  77. 2016– Corpus of News on the Web (NOW): 10 Billion Words from 20 Countries, Updated Every Day. https://www.english-corpora.org/now/
     [Google Scholar]
  78. 2018– The 14 Billion Word iWeb Corpus. https://www.english-corpora.org/iWeb/
     [Google Scholar]
  79. de Haan, Ferdinand
    2001 “The Relation between Modality and Evidentiality.” Linguistische Berichte9: 201–216.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. de Vries, Mark
    2002 The Syntax of Relativization. PhD dissertation. Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
  81. 2007 “Invisible Constituents? Parentheses as b-Merged Adverbial Phrases.” InParentheticals, ed. by Nicole Dehé , and Yordanka Kavalova , 203–234. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.106.11vri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.106.11vri [Google Scholar]
  82. 2009 “Specifying Coordination: An Investigation into the Syntax of Dislocation, Extraposition and Parenthesis.” InLanguage and Linguistics: Emerging Trends, ed. by Cynthia R. Dreyer , 37–98. New York: Nova.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. 2008 “Asymmetric Merge and Parataxis.” The Canadian Journal of Linguistics53 (2/3): 355–385. 10.1017/S0008413100004527
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100004527 [Google Scholar]
  84. 2012 “Unconventional Mergers.” InWays of Structure Building, ed. by Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria , and Vidal Valmala , 143–166. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199644933.003.0007
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199644933.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  85. Dehé, Nicole
    2007 “The Relation between Syntactic and Prosodic Parenthesis.” InParentheticals, ed. by Nicole Dehé , and Yordanka Kavalova , 261–284. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.106.15deh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.106.15deh [Google Scholar]
  86. 2014 Parentheticals in Spoken English: The Syntax–Prosody Relation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139032391
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139032391 [Google Scholar]
  87. Dehé, Nicole , and Yordanka Kavalova
    (eds) 2007 Parentheticals. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.106
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.106 [Google Scholar]
  88. Djärv, Kajsa
    2019 Factive and Assertive Attitude Reports. University of Pennsylvania, PhD dissertation.
  89. Döring, Sandra
    2015 “Parentheticals Are – Presumably – CPs.” InParenthesis and Ellipsis. Cross-Linguistic and Theoretical Perspectives, ed. by Marlies Kluck , Dennis Ott , and Mark de Vries , 109–145. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614514831.109
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614514831.109 [Google Scholar]
  90. Emonds, Joseph
    1979 "Appositive Relatives Have No Properties." Linguistic Inquiry10: 211--243.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Elder, Chi-Hé
    2019 Context, Cognition and Conditionals. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑13799‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13799-1 [Google Scholar]
  92. Endo, Yoshido , and Liliane Haegeman
    2019 “Adverbial Clauses and Adverbial Concord.” Glossa4 (1): 1–32. 10.5334/gjgl.589
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.589 [Google Scholar]
  93. Engels, Eva
    2004 Adverb Placement. An Optimality Theoretic Approach. University of Potsdam, PhD dissertation.
  94. Ernst, Thomas
    2002 The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1353/lan.2004.0143
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0143 [Google Scholar]
  95. 2009 “Speaker-Oriented Adverbs.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory27 (3): 497–544. 10.1007/s11049‑009‑9069‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-009-9069-1 [Google Scholar]
  96. 2014 “The Syntax of Adverbs.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Syntax, ed. by Andrew Carnie , Yosuke Sato , and Daniel Siddiqi , 108–130. London/New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Espinal, Teresa
    1991 "The Representation of Disjunct Constituents." Language67: 726--762. 10.2307/415075
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415075 [Google Scholar]
  98. Falkum, Ingrid Lossius
    2009 “A Pragmatic Solution to the Polysemy Paradox.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics21: 27–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. 2011 The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polysemy: A Relevance-theoretic Account. University College London, PhD dissertation.
  100. 2015 “The How and Why of Polysemy: A Pragmatic Account.” Lingua157: 83–99. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  101. Falkum, Ingrid Lossius , and Agustin Vicente
    2015 “Polysemy: Current Perspectives and Approaches.” Lingua157: 1–16. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  102. Faller, Martina T.
    2006 “Evidentiality below and above Speech Acts.” Unpublished manuscript. https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GZiZjBhO/Faller-evidentiality.above.below.pdf
  103. Fischer, Kerstin
    2006 “Towards an Understanding of the Spectrum of Approaches to Discourse Particles: Introduction to the Volume.” InApproaches to Discourse Particles, ed. by Kerstin Fischer , 1–20. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1163/9780080461588_002
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588_002 [Google Scholar]
  104. Fischer, Olga
    2007 Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1075/fol.15.2.08tra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.15.2.08tra [Google Scholar]
  105. Forceville, Charles , and Billy Clark
    2014 “Can Pictures Have Explicatures?” Linguagem Em (Dis)Curso14 (3): 451–472. 10.1590/1982‑4017‑140301‑0114
     https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4017-140301-0114 [Google Scholar]
  106. Frazier, Lyn , Katy Carlson , and Charles Clifton Jr.
    2006 “Prosodic Phrasing Is Central to Language Comprehension.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences10 (6): 244–249. 10.1016/j.tics.2006.04.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  107. Frazier, Lyn , Brian Dillon , and Charles Clifton Jr.
    2018 “Together They Stand: Interpreting Not-at-Issue Content.” Language and Speech61 (2): 199–226. 10.1177/0023830917714608
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830917714608 [Google Scholar]
  108. Frey, Werner
    2000 “Über die syntaktische Position der Satztopiks im Deutschen.” ZAS Papers in Linguistics20: 137–172. 10.21248/zaspil.20.2000.82
     https://doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.20.2000.82 [Google Scholar]
  109. 2004a “A Medial Topic Position for German.” Linguistische Berichte198: 135–190.
     [Google Scholar]
  110. 2004b “The Grammar-Pragmatics Interface and the German Prefield.” Sprache Und Pragmatik52: 1–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  111. 2006 “Contrast and Movement to the German Prefield.” InThe Architecture of Focus, ed. by Valéria Molnár , and Susanne Winkler , 235–264. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Frey, Werner
    2012 “On Two Types of Adverbial Clauses Allowing Root-Phenomena.” InMain Clause Phenomena: New Horizons, ed. by Lobke Aelbrecht , Liliane Haegeman , and Rachel Nye , 405–429. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.190.18fre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.190.18fre [Google Scholar]
  113. Frey, Werner
    2016 “On Some Correlations between Interpretative and Formal Properties of Causal Clauses.” InCo- and Subordination in German and Other Languages (Linguistische Berichte, Special Issue 21), ed. by Ingo Reich , and Augustin Speyer , 153–179. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Frey, Werner , and Karin Pittner
    1998 “Zur Positionierung Der Adverbiale Im Deutschen Mittelfeld.” Linguistische Berichte176: 489–543.
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Freywald, Ulrike
    2016 “Clause Integration and Verb Position in German. Drawing the Boundary between Subordinating Clause Linkers and Their Paratactic Homonyms.” InCo-and Subordination in German and Other Languages (Linguistische Berichte, Special Issue 21), ed. by Ingo Reich , and Augustin Speyer , 181–220. Hamburg: Nelmut Buske Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Frisson, Steven
    2009 “Semantic Underspecification in Language Processing.” Linguistics and Language Compass3 (1): 111–127. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2008.00104.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00104.x [Google Scholar]
  117. Gast, Volker , and Ekkehard König
    2008 “Sentence Anaphora in English and German”. Paper presented at thefirst meeting of the International Society for the Linguistics of English. Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany: University of Freiburg. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265666074_Sentence_Anaphora_in_English_and_German
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Geurts, Bart
    2019a “Commitments Continued.” Theoretical Linguistics45 (1–2): 111–25. 10.1515/tl‑2019‑0009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0009 [Google Scholar]
  119. 2019b “Communication as Commitment Sharing: Speech Acts, Implicatures, Common Ground.” Theoretical Linguistics45 (1–2): 1–30. 10.1515/tl‑2019‑0001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0001 [Google Scholar]
  120. Giannakidou, Anastasia
    2011 “Negative and Positive Polarity Items.” InSemantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Vol. 2, ed. by Claudia Maienborn , Klaus von Heusinger , and Paul Portner , 1660–1712. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Gibbons, John
    2013 The Norm of Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673391.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673391.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  122. Giorgi, Alessandra
    2014 “Prosodic Signals as Syntactic Formatives in the Left Periphery.” InOn Peripheries: Exploring Clause Initial and Clause Final Positions, ed. by Anna Cardinaletti , Guglielmo Cinque , and Yoshio Endo , 161–188. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
     [Google Scholar]
  123. 2016 “Epistemic Adverbs, the Prosody-Syntax Interface, and the Theory of Phases.” InRomance Linguistics 2013. Selected Papers from the 43rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), New York, 17–19 April, 2013, ed. by Christina Tortora , Marcel den Dikken , Ignacio L. Montoya , and Teresa O’Neill , 99–117. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/rllt.9.06gio
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.9.06gio [Google Scholar]
  124. Gregoromichelaki, Eleni , and Ruth Kempson
    2019 “Procedural Syntax”. InRelevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation, ed. by Kate Scott , Billy Clark , and Robyn Carston , 187–202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108290593.017
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108290593.017 [Google Scholar]
  125. Grice, H. P.
    1989 Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Griffiths, James
    2014 “Parenthetical Verb Constructions, Fragment Answers, and Constituent Modification.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory33 (1): 191–229. 10.1007/s11049‑014‑9256‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9256-6 [Google Scholar]
  127. Griffiths, James , and Mark de Vries
    2019 “Parenthesis: Syntactic Integration or Orphanage? A Rejoinder to Ott (2016).” Linguistic Inquiry50 (3): 609–629. 10.1162/ling_a_00314
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00314 [Google Scholar]
  128. Griffiths, James , and Güliz Güneş
    2015 “ Ki Issues in Turkish. Parenthetical Coordination and Adjunction.” InParenthesis and Ellipsis. Cross-linguistic and Theoretical Perspectives, ed. by Marlies Kluck , Dennis Ott , and Mark de Vries , 173–217. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614514831.173
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614514831.173 [Google Scholar]
  129. Haegeman, Liliane
    2006 “Conditionals, Factives and the Left Periphery.” Lingua116: 1651–1669. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.03.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.03.014 [Google Scholar]
  130. 1991/2009 “Parenthetical Adverbials: The Radical Orphanage Approach.” InDislocated Elements in Discourse: Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Perspectives, ed. by Benjamin Shaer , Philippa Cook , Werner Frey , and Claudia Maienborn , 331–347. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  131. 2012 Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and the Composition of the Left Periphery. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 8. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858774.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858774.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  132. Haegeman, Liliane , Benjamin Shaer , and Werner Frey
    2009 “Postscript: Problems and Solutions for Orphan Analyses.” InDislocated Elements in Discourse: Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Perspectives, ed. by Benjamin Shaer , Philippa Cook , Werner Frey , and Claudia Maienborn , 348–365. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Haider, Hubert
    2006 “ Mittelfeld Phenomena (Scrambling in Germanic).” InThe Blackwell Companion to Syntax, ed. by Martin Everaert , and Henk van Riemsdijk , 204–274. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470996591.ch43
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch43 [Google Scholar]
  134. Hall, Alison
    2004 “The Meaning of But: A Procedural Reanalysis.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics16: 199–236.
     [Google Scholar]
  135. 2009 “Subsentential Utterances, Ellipsis, and Pragmatic Enrichment.” Pragmatics and Cognition17 (2): 222–250. 10.1075/pc.17.2.02hal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.2.02hal [Google Scholar]
  136. 2011 “Ad Hoc Concepts: Atomic or Decompositional?” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics23: 1–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  137. 2014 “‘Free’ Enrichment and the Nature of Pragmatic Constraints.” International Review of Pragmatics6 (1): 1–28. 10.1163/18773109‑00601002
     https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00601002 [Google Scholar]
  138. Hardie, Andrew
    2012 “CQPweb – Combining Power, Flexibility and Usability in a Corpus Analysis Tool.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics17 (3): 380–409. 10.1075/ijcl.17.3.04har
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17.3.04har [Google Scholar]
  139. Hickey, Raymond
    2020 “ Sure in Irish English: The Diachrony of a Pragmatic Marker.” InVoices of English: Tapping into Records Past and Present, ed. by Ewa Jonsson , and Tove Larsson , 173–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Holdcroft, David
    1978 Words and Deeds: Problems in the Theory of Speech Acts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  141. Holmes, Janet
    1984 “Modifying Illocutionary Force.” Journal of Pragmatics8: 345–365. 10.1016/0378‑2166(84)90028‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6 [Google Scholar]
  142. Horn, Laurence R.
    1984 “Towards a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q-Based and R-Based Implicature.” InMeaning, Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin , 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  143. 1989 A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Hoye, Leo F.
    1997 Adverbs and Modality in English. London/New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  145. Huddleston, Rodney , and Geoffrey K. Pullum
    2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  146. Ifantidou, Elly
    2001 Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.86
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.86 [Google Scholar]
  147. Ifantidou-Trouki, Elly
    1993 “Sentential Adverbs and Relevance.” Lingua90 (1–2): 69–90. 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90061‑Z
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90061-Z [Google Scholar]
  148. Itani, Reiko
    1995 Semantics and Pragmatics of Hedges in English and Japanese. University College London, PhD dissertation.
  149. Itani-Kaufmann, Reiko
    1990 “Explicature and Explicit Attitude.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics2: 52–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  150. Iten, Corinne
    2005 Linguistic Meaning, Truth Conditions and Relevance: The Case of Concessives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230503236
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230503236 [Google Scholar]
  151. Jackendoff, Ray
    1972 Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  152. Jackson, Rebecca C.
    2016 The Pragmatics of Repetition, Emphasis, and Intensification. University of Salford, PhD dissertation.
  153. Jary, Mark
    2002 “Mood in Relevance Theory: A Re-Analysis Focusing on the Spanish Subjunctive.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics14: 157–187.
     [Google Scholar]
  154. 2007 "Are Explicit Performatives Assertions?" Lingistics and Philosphy30: 207-234. 10.1007/s10988‑007‑9015‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-007-9015-9 [Google Scholar]
  155. 2004 “Indicative Mood, Assertoric Force and Relevance.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics16: 237–246.
     [Google Scholar]
  156. 2008 “The Relevance of Complement Choice: A Corpus Study of ‘Believe.’” Lingua118 (1): 1–18. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.03.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  157. 2010 Assertion. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230274617
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230274617 [Google Scholar]
  158. 2011 “Assertion, Relevance and the Declarative Mood.” InProcedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal , Manuel Leonetti , and Aoife Ahern , 267–289. Bingley: Emerald. 10.1108/S1472‑7870(2011)0000025015
     https://doi.org/10.1108/S1472-7870(2011)0000025015 [Google Scholar]
  159. 2013 “Two Types of Implicature: Material and Behavioural.” Mind and Language28 (5): 638–660. 10.1111/mila.12037
     https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12037 [Google Scholar]
  160. Jary, Mark , and Mikhail Kissine
    2014 Imperatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511998126
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511998126 [Google Scholar]
  161. 2016 “When Terminology Matters: The Imperative as a Comparative Concept.” Linguistics54 (1): 119–148. 10.1515/ling‑2015‑0039
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0039 [Google Scholar]
  162. 2017 “Imperatives as (Non-)Modals.” InMood, Aspect, Modality Revisited, ed. by Joanna Blaszczak , Anastasia Giannakidou , Dorota Klimek-Jankowska , and Krzysztof Migdalski , 255–285. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  163. 2019 “Mood and the Analysis of Imperative Sentences.” InRelevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation, ed. by Kate Scott , Billy Clark , and Robyn Carston , 115–126. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108290593.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108290593.011 [Google Scholar]
  164. Kearns, John T.
    2006 “Conditional Assertion, Denial, and Supposition as Illocutionary Acts.” Linguistics and Philosophy29: 455–485. 10.1007/s10988‑006‑0007‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-006-0007-y [Google Scholar]
  165. Kluck, Marlies
    2011 Sentence Amalgamation. University of Groningen, PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  166. Kluck, Marlies , and Mark de Vries
    2015 “On V2, Gaps, and Operators in Comment and Reporting Parentheticals.” InParenthetical Verbs, ed. by Stefan Schneider , Julie Glikman , and Mathieu Avanzi , 103–132. Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  167. Kluck, Marlies , Dennis Ott , and Mark de Vries
    (eds) 2015 Parenthesis and Ellipsis. Cross-Linguistic and Theoretical Perspectives. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614514831
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614514831 [Google Scholar]
  168. Krifka, Manfred
    2013 “Response Particles as Propositional Anaphors.” InProceedings of Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 23, ed. by Todd Snider , 1–18. Washington, DC: LSA. 10.3765/salt.v23i0.2676
     https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v23i0.2676 [Google Scholar]
  169. 2017 “Assertions and judgements, epistemics, and evidentials.” Paper presented at theWorkshop Speech Acts: Meanings, Uses, Syntactic and Prosodic Realizations Leibniz-ZAS Berlin, May 29–31, 2017. https://amor.cms.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3x/Talks/CommitmentEpistemicsHandout.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  170. Leonetti, Manuel , and Victoria M. Escandell Vidal
    2009 “Fronting and Verum Focus in Spanish.” InFocus and Background in Romance Languages, ed. by Andreas Dufter , and Daniel Jacob , 155–204. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.112.07leo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.112.07leo [Google Scholar]
  171. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2000 Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  172. Liu, Mingya
    2012 Multidimensional Semantics of Evaluative Adverbs. Leiden/Boston: Brill. 10.1163/9789004248496
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004248496 [Google Scholar]
  173. Ludwig, Rainer , Fabienne Salfner , and Mathias Schenner
    2012 “Adverbials in German. More on Embedding and Focus.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics26 (1): 84–115. 10.1075/bjl.26.04lud
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.26.04lud [Google Scholar]
  174. Matsui, Tomoko
    2002 “Semantics and Pragmatics of a Japanese Discourse Marker Dakara (So/In Other Words): A Unitary Account.” Journal of Pragmatics34 (7): 867–891. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00066‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00066-2 [Google Scholar]
  175. Matsui, Tomoko , Taeko Yamamoto , Yui Miura , and Peter McCagg
    2016 “Young Children’s Early Sensitivity to Linguistic Indications of Speaker Certainty in Their Selective Word Learning.” Lingua175–176: 83–96. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.10.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.10.007 [Google Scholar]
  176. Mayol, Laia , and Elena Castroviejo
    2013 “(Non)Integrated Evaluative Adverbs in Questions: A Cross-Romance Study.” Language89 (2): 195–230. 10.1353/lan.2013.0030
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0030 [Google Scholar]
  177. McCawley, James D.
    1982 “Parentheticals and Discontinuous Constituent Structure.” Linguistic Inquiry13 (1): 91–106.
     [Google Scholar]
  178. Meinunger, André
    2004 “On Certain Adverbials in the German ‘Vorfeld’ and ‘Vor-Vor-Feld.’” Sprache und Pragmatik52: 64–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  179. 2006 “Interface Restrictions on Verb Second.” Linguistic Review23: 127–160. 10.1515/TLR.2006.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TLR.2006.005 [Google Scholar]
  180. 2009 “Leftmost Peripheral Adverbs and Adjectives in German.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics12 (2): 115–135. 10.1007/s10828‑009‑9028‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-009-9028-6 [Google Scholar]
  181. Mittwoch, Anita
    1977 “How to Refer to One’s Own Words: Speech-Act Modifying Adverbials and the Performative Analysis.” Journal of Linguistics13 (2): 177–189. 10.1017/S0022226700005387
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700005387 [Google Scholar]
  182. 1979 “Final Parentheticals with English Questions: Their Illocutionary Function and Grammar.” Journal of Pragmatics3 (5): 401–412. 10.1016/0378‑2166(79)90016‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(79)90016-X [Google Scholar]
  183. 1985 “Sentences, Utterance Boundaries, Personal Deixis and the E-Hypothesis.” Theoretical Linguistics12 (2–3): 137–152. 10.1515/thli.1985.12.s1.137
     https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1985.12.s1.137 [Google Scholar]
  184. Murray, Sarah E.
    2017 The Semantics of Evidentials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199681570.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199681570.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  185. Müller, Kalle
    2019 “Sentence Adverbials, (Non-)at-Issueness, and Orientation in German – Evidence from Conditionals.” InSecondary Content. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Side Issues, ed. by Daniel Gutzmann , and Katharina Turgay , 311–340. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004393127
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004393127 [Google Scholar]
  186. Noh, Eun-Ju
    2000 Metarepresentation: A Relevance-Theory Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.69
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.69 [Google Scholar]
  187. Nuyts, Jan
    2001 Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.5 [Google Scholar]
  188. Ott, Dennis
    2014 “Connectivity in Left-Dislocation and the Composition of the Left Periphery.” Linguistic Inquiry45: 269–303. 10.1162/LING_a_00155
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00155 [Google Scholar]
  189. 2016a “Ellipsis in Appositives.” Glossa1 (1): 1–46. 10.5334/gjgl.37
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.37 [Google Scholar]
  190. 2016b “Fragment Anchors Do Not Support the Syntactic Integration of Appositive Relative Clauses: Reply to Griffiths and de Vries 2013.” Linguistic Inquiry47: 580–590. 10.1162/LING_a_00223
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00223 [Google Scholar]
  191. Ott, Dennis , and Mark de Vries
    2016 “Right-Dislocation as Deletion.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory34: 641–690. 10.1007/s11049‑015‑9307‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9307-7 [Google Scholar]
  192. Ott, Dennis , and Edgar Onea
    2015 “On the Form and Meaning of Appositives.” InProceedings of NELS 45, Vol. 2, ed. by Thuy Bui , and Deniz Ozyildiz , 203–212. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  193. Padilla Cruz, Manuel
    2009 “Towards an Alternative Relevance-Theoretic Approach to Interjections.” International Review of Pragmatics1 (1): 182–206. 10.1163/187731009X455884
     https://doi.org/10.1163/187731009X455884 [Google Scholar]
  194. 2010 “What Do Interjections Contribute to Communication and How Are They Interpreted? A Cognitive Pragmatic Approach.” InPragmatic Perspectives on Language and Linguistics. Vol. I: Speech Actions in Theory and Applied Studies, ed. by Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka , 39–68. New Castle-Upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  195. 2017 “On the Origin and Meaning of Secondary Interjections: A Relevance-Theoretic Proposal.” InApplications of Relevance Theory: From Discourse to Morphemes, ed. by Agnieszka Piskorska , and Ewa Wałaszewska , 299–326. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  196. 2018 “Expressive APs and Expletive NPs Revisited: Refining the Extant Relevance-Theoretic Procedural Account.” Lingua205: 54–70. 10.1016/j.lingua.2017.12.016
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.12.016 [Google Scholar]
  197. Palmer, F. R.
    2001 Mood and Modality. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  198. Pandarova, Irina
    2020 “The Semantics and Pragmatics of Sure in Irish English.” Paper presented atNew Perspectives on Irish English 6. Vienna, Austria: University of Vienna. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265666074_Sentence_Anaphora_in_English_and_German. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345177664_The_semantics_and_pragmatics_of_SURE_in_Irish_English
     [Google Scholar]
  199. Papafragou, Anna
    2000 Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1163/9780585474199
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9780585474199 [Google Scholar]
  200. 2006 “Epistemic Modality and Truth Conditions.” Lingua116 (10): 1688–1702. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.05.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  201. Piñón, Christopher
    2006 “Modal Adverbs Again.” Paper presented at theSyntax, Lexicon and Event Structure Conference, July 6, 2006, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. pinon.sdf-eu.org/work/pinon_maa_ho.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  202. Piñón, Christopher
    2009 “The Thing about Modal Adverbs.” Snippets20: 42–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  203. Pittner, Karin
    1999 Adverbiale im Deutschen. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Stellung und Interpretation. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  204. 2004 “Where Syntax and Semantics Meet. Adverbial Positions in the German Middle Field.” InAdverbials: The Interplay between Meaning, Context, and Syntactic Structure, ed. by Jennifer R. Austin , Stefan Engelbrecht , and Gisa Rauh , 253–287. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.70.09pit
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.70.09pit [Google Scholar]
  205. Potts, Christopher
    2005 The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  206. Quirk, Randolph , Sidney Greenbaum , Geoffrey Leech , and Jan Svartvik
    1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London, New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  207. Recanati, Francois
    1987 Meaning and Force: The Pragmatics of Performative Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  208. Reis, Marga , and Angelika Wöllstein
    2010 “Zur Grammatik (vor allem) konditionaler V1-Gefüge im Deutschen.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft29: 111–179. 10.1515/zfsw.2010.004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.2010.004 [Google Scholar]
  209. Rizzi, Luigi
    1997 “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery.” InElements of Grammar, ed. by Liliane Haegeman , 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  210. Roberts, Craige
    2011 “Solving for Interpretation.” Paper presented at theWorkshop on Meaning and Understanding at the Centre for Advanced Study, Oslo. https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/roberts.21/Solving_for_interpretation.Oslo.paper.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  211. 1996/2012 “Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics.” Semantics and Pragmatics5 (6): 1–69. 10.3765/sp.5.6
     https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6 [Google Scholar]
  212. 2017 “Agreeing and Assessing: Epistemic Modals and the Question Under Discussion.” Paper Presented at theOslo Workshop on Non-at-Issue Meaning and Information Structure“, June 30 2017. https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/roberts.21/Roberts.AandA.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  213. Rooryck, Johan
    2001 “Evidentiality, Part I.” Glot International5 (4): 125–133.
     [Google Scholar]
  214. Rouchota, Villy
    1994 The Semantics and Pragmatics of the Subjunctive in Modern Greek. A Relevance-Theoretic Approach. University of London, PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  215. 1998 “Connectives, Coherence and Relevance.” InCurrent Issues in Relevance Theory, ed. by Villy Rouchota , and Andreas H. Jucker , 11–57. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.58.04rou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.58.04rou [Google Scholar]
  216. Safir, Ken
    1986 “Relative Clauses in a Theory of Binding and Levels.” Linguistic Inquiry17: 663–689.
     [Google Scholar]
  217. Sailor, Craig
    2012 “You Can’t Regret So (Even if You Think So).” Paper presented at theIllinois Language and Linguistics Society 4. Illinois: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
     [Google Scholar]
  218. Sasamoto, Ryoko
    2008 “Japanese Discourse Connectives Dakara and Sorede: A Re-Assessment of Procedural Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics40 (1): 127–154. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.08.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.08.008 [Google Scholar]
  219. Scheffler, Tatjana
    2013 Two-Dimensional Semantics. Clausal Adjuncts and Complements. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110302332
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302332 [Google Scholar]
  220. Scott, Kate
    2008 “Reference, Procedures and Implicitly Communicated Meaning.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics20: 275–301.
     [Google Scholar]
  221. Searle, John R.
    1979 Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  222. Searle, John R. , and Daniel Vanderveken
    1985 Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  223. Shaer, Benjamin , and Werner Frey
    2004 “‘Integrated’ and ‘non-integrated’ left-peripheral elements in German and English.” ZAS Papers in Linguistics35 (2): 465–502. 10.21248/zaspil.35.2004.238
     https://doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.35.2004.238 [Google Scholar]
  224. Shu, Chih-Hsiang
    2011 Sentence Adverbs in the Kingdom of Agree. Stony Brook University, PhD dissertation.
  225. Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie , and Karin Aijmer
    2007 The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A Corpus-Based Study of English Adverbs. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110198928
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198928 [Google Scholar]
  226. Simons, Mandy
    2007 “Observations on Embedding Verbs, Evidentiality, and Presupposition.” Lingua117 (6): 1034–1056. 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  227. Simons, Mandy , David I. Beaver , Craige Roberts , and Judith Tonhauser
    2017 “The Best Question: Explaining the Projection Behavior of Factives.” Discourse Processes54 (3): 187–206. 10.1080/0163853X.2016.1150660
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1150660 [Google Scholar]
  228. Simons, Mandy , Judith Tonhauser , David I. Beaver , and Craige Roberts
    2010 “What Projects and Why.” InProceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 21, ed. by Nan Li , and David Lutz , 309–327. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. 10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584
     https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584 [Google Scholar]
  229. Speas, Peggy , and Carol Tenny
    2003 “Configurational Properties of Point of View Roles.” InAsymmetry in Grammar, ed. by Anna M. Di Scuillo , 315–344. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.57.15spe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.57.15spe [Google Scholar]
  230. Sperber, Dan
    1997 “Intuitive and Reflective Beliefs.” Mind and Language12 (1): 67–83. 10.1111/1468‑0017.00036
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00036 [Google Scholar]
  231. 2000 "Metarepresentations in an Evolutionary Perspective." InMetarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, ed. by Dan Sperber , 117--137. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  232. Sperber, Dan , Fabrice Clément , Christophe Heintz , Olivier Mascaro , Hugo Mercier , Gloria Origgi , and Deirdre Wilson
    2010 “Epistemic Vigilance.” Mind and Language25 (4): 359–393. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2010.01394.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x [Google Scholar]
  233. Sperber, Dan , and Deirdre Wilson
    1986/1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed.Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  234. 2015 “Beyond Speaker’s Meaning.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy15 (2): 117–149.
     [Google Scholar]
  235. Squartini, Mario
    2018 “Extragrammatical Expression of Information Source.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality, ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald , 273–285. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.14
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.14 [Google Scholar]
  236. Stalnaker, Robert C.
    1974/1999 Pragmatic Presuppositions. InContent and Context, 47–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  237. 2002 “Common Ground.” Linguistics and Philosophy25: 701–721. 10.1023/A:1020867916902
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902 [Google Scholar]
  238. Stenström, Anna-Brita
    1990 “Adverbial Commas and Prosodic Segmentation.” InThe London Lund Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research, ed. by Jan Svartvik , 253–266. Lund: Lund University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  239. Stowell, Tim
    2017 “Qualified Parenthetical Adjuncts.” Wiener Linguistische Gazette82: 289–295.
     [Google Scholar]
  240. Sweetser, Eve
    1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  241. te Velde, John R.
    2010 “Towards an Account of Adverbials in the Vor-Vorfeld: Beyond V2-Syntax.” Tampa Papers in Linguistics4 (1): 62–86.
     [Google Scholar]
  242. Tescari Neto, Aquiles
    2013 On Verb Movement in Brazilian Portuguese: A Cartographic Study. Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia, PhD dissertation.
  243. Tonhauser, Judith
    2012 “Diagnosing (not-)at-issue content.” InProceedings of the Sixth Conference on the Semantics of Under-represented Languages in the Americas (SULA6) and SULA-Bar, ed. by Elizabeth Bogal-Allbritten , 239–254. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  244. Tonhauser, Judith , David I. Beaver , and Judith Degen
    2018 “How Projective Is Projective Content? Gradience in Projectivity and At-Issueness.” Journal of Semantics35 (3): 1–48. 10.1093/jos/ffy007
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffy007 [Google Scholar]
  245. Tonhauser, Judith , David I. Beaver , Craige Roberts , and Mandy Simons
    2013 “Toward a Taxonomy of Projective Content.” Language89 (1): 66–109. 10.1353/lan.2013.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0001 [Google Scholar]
  246. Truckenbrodt, Hubert
    2015 “Intonation Phrases and Speech Acts.” InParenthesis and Ellipsis. Cross-Linguistic and Theoretical Perspectives, ed. by Marlies Kluck , Dennis Ott , and Mark de Vries , 301–349. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614514831.301
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614514831.301 [Google Scholar]
  247. Uriagereka, Juan
    1999 “Multiple Spell-Out.” InWorking Minimalism, ed. by Samuel D. Epstein , and Norbert Hornstein , 251–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  248. Urmson, James O.
    1952/1963 “Parenthetical Verbs.” InPhilosophy and Ordinary Language, ed. by Charles E. Caton , 220–240. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  249. Urquiza Arribas, Catalina
    2014 Constructing Concepts and Word Meanings: The Role of Context and Memory Traces. University College London, PhD dissertation.
  250. van Gompel, Roger P. G.
    2006 “Sentence Processing.” InEncyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. ed. by Keith Brown , 251–255. Oxford: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00789‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00789-6 [Google Scholar]
  251. van Gompel, Roger P. G. , Martin J. Pickering , and Matthew J. Traxler
    2000 “Unrestricted Race: A New Model of Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution.” InReading as a Perceptual Process, ed. by Alan Kennedy , Ralph Radach , Dieter Heller , and Joël B. T. Pynte , 621–648. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑008043642‑5/50029‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043642-5/50029-2 [Google Scholar]
  252. Vanderveken, Daniel
    1990 Meaning and Speech acts, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  253. Vega Moreno, Rosa E.
    2007 Creativity and Convention: The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.156
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.156 [Google Scholar]
  254. Vicente, Begona , and Marjolein Groefsema
    2013 “Something out of Nothing? Rethinking Unarticulated Constituents.” Journal of Pragmatics47 (1): 108–127. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.009 [Google Scholar]
  255. von Fintel, Kai
    2003 “Epistemic Modals and Conditionals Revisited.” Handout, Colloquium at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. web.mit.edu/fintel/fintel-2003-umass-epistemics.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  256. von Fintel, Kai , and Anthony S. Gillies
    2011 “‘Might’ Made Right.” InEpistemic Modality, ed. by Andy Egan , and Brian Weatherson , 108–130. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199591596.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199591596.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  257. Wharton, Tim
    2009 Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511635649
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635649 [Google Scholar]
  258. 2016 “That Bloody So-and-So Has Retired: Expressives Revisited.” Lingua175–176: 20–35. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  259. Wichmann, Anne
    2000 Intonation in Text and Discourse: Beginnings, Middles and Ends. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  260. 2001 “Spoken Parentheticals.” InA Wealth of English, ed. by Karin Aijmer , 177–193. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
     [Google Scholar]
  261. Wilson, Deirdre
    2004 “Relevance and Lexical Pragmatics.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics16: 343–360.
     [Google Scholar]
  262. Wilson, Deirdre
    2006 “The Pragmatics of Verbal Irony: Echo or Pretence?” Lingua116 (10): 1722–1743. 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  263. Wilson, Deirdre
    2009 “Irony and Metarepresentation.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics21: 183–226.
     [Google Scholar]
  264. 2011 “The Conceptual-Procedural Distinction: Past, Present and Future.” InProcedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal , Manuel Leonetti , and Aoife Ahern , 3–31. Bingley: Emerald. 10.1108/S1472‑7870(2011)0000025005
     https://doi.org/10.1108/S1472-7870(2011)0000025005 [Google Scholar]
  265. 2000/2012 “Metarepresentation in Linguistic Communication.” InMeaning and Relevance, ed. by Deirdre Wilson , and Dan Sperber , 230–258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370.014
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370.014 [Google Scholar]
  266. 2016 “Reassessing the Conceptual–Procedural Distinction.” Lingua175–176: 5–19. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  267. Wilson, Deirdre , and Robyn Carston
    2006 “Metaphor, Relevance and the ‘Emergent Property’ Issue.” Mind and Language21 (3): 404–433. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00284.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00284.x [Google Scholar]
  268. 2007 “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.” InPragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts , 230–259. London: Palgrave MacMillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑349‑73908‑0_12
     https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_12 [Google Scholar]
  269. Wilson, Deirdre , and Dan Sperber
    1979 “Ordered Entailments: An Alternative to Presuppositional Theories.” InSyntax and Semantics, Vol. 11: Presuppositions, ed. by Choon-Kuy Oh , and David A. Dinneen , 299–323. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  270. 1988/2012 “Mood and the Analysis of Non-Declarative Sentences.” InMeaning and Relevance, ed. by Deirdre Wilson , and Dan Sperber , 210–229. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  271. 1992 “On Verbal Irony.” Lingua87: 53–76. 10.1016/0024‑3841(92)90025‑E
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(92)90025-E [Google Scholar]
  272. 1993 “Linguistic Form and Relevance.” Lingua90: 1–25. 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90058‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 [Google Scholar]
  273. 2002 “Truthfulness and Relevance.” Mind111 (443): 583–632. 10.1093/mind/111.443.583
     https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/111.443.583 [Google Scholar]
  274. 2004 “Relevance Theory.” InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence R. Horn , and Gregory Ward , 607–632. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  275. Wilson, Deirdre , and Tim Wharton
    2006 “Relevance and Prosody.” Journal of Pragmatics38 (10): 1559–1579. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.012 [Google Scholar]
  276. Wolf, Lavi
    2014 Degrees of Assertion. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, PhD dissertation.
  277. Wolf, Lavi , and Ariel Cohen
    2011 “Clarity as Objectivized Belief.” InVagueness and Language Use, ed. by Paul Égré , and Nathan Klinedinst , 165–190. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230299313_8
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299313_8 [Google Scholar]
  278. Zimmermann, Malte
    2008 “Discourse Particles in the Left Periphery.” InDislocated Elements in Discourse: Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Perspectives, ed. by Benjamin Shaer , Philippa Cook , Werner Frey , and Claudia Maienborn , 200–231. Oxford: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  279. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter
    2005 “Verb Second as a Function of Merge.” InThe Function of Function Words and Functional Categories, ed. by Marcel den Dikken , and Christina M. Tortora , 11–40. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.78.03zwa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.78.03zwa [Google Scholar]
/content/books/9789027252838
Loading

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027252838
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027252838
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027252838
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error