oa How much is too much?

References

1. Auer, Peter
   2009 On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences(). –. 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004 [Google Scholar]
2. Chafe, Wallace
   1974 Language and Consciousness. Language(). . 10.2307/412014
   https://doi.org/10.2307/412014 [Google Scholar]
3. Chafe, Wallace
   1979 The flow of thought and the flow of language. InTalmy Givón (ed.), Discourse and syntax, –. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368897_008
   https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368897_008 [Google Scholar]
4. Chafe, Wallace
   1987 Cognitive constraints on information flow. InRussell Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.11.03cha
   https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.11.03cha [Google Scholar]
5. Chafe, Wallace
   1994 Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Chafe, Wallace
   2018 Thought-based linguistics: How languages turn thoughts into sounds. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781108367493
   https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108367493 [Google Scholar]
7. Croft, William
   1995 Intonation units and grammatical structure. Linguistics(). –. 10.1515/ling.1995.33.5.839
   https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1995.33.5.839 [Google Scholar]
8. Croft, William
   2007 The origins of grammar in the verbalization of experience. Cognitive Linguistics(). –. 10.1515/COG.2007.021
   https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.021 [Google Scholar]
9. Damron, Rebecca L.
   2004 Prosodic schemas: Evidence from Urdu and Pakistani English. InCarol Lynn Moder & Aida Martinovic-Zic (eds.), Discourse across languages and cultures, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.68.04dam
   https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.68.04dam [Google Scholar]
10. Du Bois, John W.
    1987 The discourse basis of ergativity. Language(). –. 10.2307/415719
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415719 [Google Scholar]
11. Du Bois, John W.
    2003 Argument structure: Grammar in use. InJohn W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf & William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as architecture for function, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.14.04dub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.14.04dub [Google Scholar]
12. Elder, Nicholas A.
    2016 On transcription and oral transmission in Aseneth: A study of the narrative’s conception. Journal for the Study of Judaism(). –. 10.1163/15700631‑12340442
    https://doi.org/10.1163/15700631-12340442 [Google Scholar]
13. Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman
    2004 Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. InMirjam Fried & Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), Constructional approaches to language, vol., –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.2.02fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri [Google Scholar]
14. Givón, Talmy
    1975 Focus and the scope of assertion: Some Bantu evidence. Studies in African Linguistics(). –.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Givón, Talmy
    1984 Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, vol.. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.17 [Google Scholar]
16. Givón, Talmy
    1991 Some substantive issues concerning verb serialization: Grammatical vs. cognitive packaging. InClaire Lefebvre (ed.), Serial verb constructions: Grammatical, comparative and cognitive approaches, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ssls.8.06giv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssls.8.06giv [Google Scholar]
17. Götze, Michael, Cornelia Endriss, Stefan Hinterwimmer, Ines Fiedler, Svetlana Petrova, Anne Schwarz, Stavros Skopeteas, Ruben Stoel & Thomas Weskott
    2007 Information structure. InStefanie Dippe, Michael Götze & Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), Information structure in cross-linguistic corpora: Annotation guidelines for phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and information structure, –. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1967 Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783111357447
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111357447 [Google Scholar]
19. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., Meytal Sandler, Jan Strunk & Volker Unterladstetter
    2018 On the universality of intonational phrases: A cross-linguistic interrater study. Phonology(). –. 10.1017/S0952675718000039
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675718000039 [Google Scholar]
20. Inbar, Maya, Eitan Grossman & Ayelet N. Landau
    2020 Sequences of intonation units form a ~ 1 Hz rhythm. Scientific Reports(). . 10.1038/s41598‑020‑72739‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72739-4 [Google Scholar]
21. Linders, Guido M. & Stefan Schnell
    2026 A cross-linguistic computational study on One New Idea per clause. Functions of Language().
    [Google Scholar]
22. Matsumoto, Kazuko
    2003 Intonation units in Japanese conversation: Syntactic, informational and functional structures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.65
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.65 [Google Scholar]
23. Mithun, Marianne
    2021 The multidimensional organization of speech: Syntactic and prosodic structure. Cadernos de Linguística(). –. 10.25189/2675‑4916.2021.v2.n1.id287
    https://doi.org/10.25189/2675-4916.2021.v2.n1.id287 [Google Scholar]
24. Mithun, Marianne
    2026 The role of information packaging in shaping linguistic structure. Functions of Language().
    [Google Scholar]
25. Ozerov, Pavel
    2026 Beyond cognitive constraints: Interactional factors underlying one-new-idea tendency. Functions of Language().
    [Google Scholar]
26. Park, Joseph Sung-Yul
    2002 Cognitive and interactional motivations for the intonation unit. Studies in Language(). –. 10.1075/sl.26.3.07par
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.26.3.07par [Google Scholar]
27. Pawley, Andrew
    1987 Encoding events in Kalam and English: Different logics for reporting experience. InRussell S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.11.15paw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.11.15paw [Google Scholar]
28. Pawley, Andrew
    2009 On the origins of serial verb constructions in Kalam. InTalmy Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani (eds.), Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.85.05ont
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.85.05ont [Google Scholar]
29. Pawley, Andrew & Frances Syder
    1983 Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. InJack C. Richards & Richard W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and communication, –. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Pawley, Andrew & Frances Syder
    2000 The one-clause-at-a-time hypothesis. InHeidi Riggenbach (ed.), Perspectives on fluency, –. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Peck, Naomi
    2026 Verbalisation and the one-new-idea constraint. Functions of Language().
    [Google Scholar]
32. Peck, Naomi, Kirsten Culhane, Simon Fries & Uta Reinöhl
    2026 TONIC: Testing the one-new-idea constraint annotation guidelines. OSF. March 12. 10.17605/OSF.IO/AR7CF
    https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AR7CF [Google Scholar]
33. Reinöhl, Uta
    ed. In preparation. Flat constructions reveal entity-event asymmetries.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Reinöhl, Uta & T. Mark Ellison
    2024 Metaphor forces argument overtness. Linguistics(). –. 10.1515/ling‑2021‑0072
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0072 [Google Scholar]
35. Reinöhl, Uta & T. Mark Ellison
    2026 The one-new-idea constraint, functor–argument metaphors, and holistic language processing. Functions of Language().
    [Google Scholar]
36. Reinöhl, Uta & Naomi Peck
    2026 The idea in the one-new-idea constraint. Functions of Language().
    [Google Scholar]
37. Selkirk, Elisabeth O.
    1984 Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]