1887
Volume 8, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
Preview this article:
Zoom in
Zoomout

Cancellative discourse markers, Page 1 of 1

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/prag.8.4.03bel-1.gif

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.8.4.03bel
1998-01-01
2019-09-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abraham, W
    (1976) But. Studia Linguistica33.2: 89-119. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.1979.tb00678.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.1979.tb00678.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Altenberg, B
    (1986) Contrastive linking in spoken and written English. In G. Tottie and I. Backlund (eds.), English in Speech and Writing: A Symposium. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International, pp.13-40.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anscombre, J.-C. and O. Ducrot
    (1977) Deux mais en Francais?Lingua43: 23-40. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(77)90046‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(77)90046-8 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bar-Lev, Z. and A. Palacas
    (1980) Semantic command over pragmatic priority. Lingua51: 137-146. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(80)90004‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(80)90004-2 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bell, D
    (1994) Cancellative discourse markers. Unpublished Ph.D.Boston University.
  6. Blakemore, D
    (1987) Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (1989a) Linguistic form and pragmatic interpretation: The explicit and the implicit. In L. Hickey (ed.), The Pragmatics of Style. London: Routledge, pp.28-51.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (1989b) Denial and contrast: A relevance theoretic analysis of “But.” Linguistics and Philosophy. 12: 15-37. doi: 10.1007/BF00627397
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627397 [Google Scholar]
  9. Borkin, A
    (1980) On some conjunctions signaling dissonance in written expository English. Studia Anglica Posnanensia, 12: 47-59.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Carston, R
    (1993) Conjunction, explanation and relevance. Lingua90: 27-48. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90059‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90059-6 [Google Scholar]
  11. Crewe, W.J
    (1990) The illogic of logical connectives. ELT Journal44.4: 316-325. doi: 10.1093/elt/44.4.316
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.316 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dascal, M. and T. Katriel
    (1977) Between semantics and pragmatics: Two types of “but” – Hebrew “aval” and “ela.”. Theoretical Linguistics4: 143-172. doi: 10.1515/thli.1977.4.1‑3.143
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1977.4.1-3.143 [Google Scholar]
  13. Foolen, A
    (1991) Polyfunctionality and the semantics of adversative conjunctions. Multilingua10: 79-92.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fraser, B
    (1988) Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica. 38.(1–4): 19-33.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (1990) An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics14: 383-395. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90096‑V
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V [Google Scholar]
  16. (1996) Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics6.2: 167-190.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (1997a) Contrastive discourse markers in English. To appear inPragmatics & Beyond, New Series: Discourse Markers.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (1997b) What are discourse markers?To appear inJournal of Pragmatics: Special Issue to honor Jacob Mey.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Greenbaum, S
    (1969) Studies in Adverbial Usage. Coral Gables , Fla.: University of Miami Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Grice, H.P
    (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic, pp.41-58.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gunter, R
    (1984) The conjunctive system of English. Language Sciences6.1: 1-29.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Halliday, M.A.K
    (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hirtle, W.H
    (1977) “Already,” “Still” and “Yet.” Archivum Linguisticum8: 28-45.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Jesperson, O
    (1940) A Modern English Grammar. Part V Syntax. Fourth Volume. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Katriel, T. and M. Dascal
    (1984) What do indicating devices indicate?Philosophy and Rhetoric. 17.1: 1-15.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kempson, R
    (1975) Presuppositions and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Koenig, E
    (1988) Concessive connectives and concessive sentences: Cross linguistic regularities and pragmatic principles. In J.A. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining language universals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp.145-185.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Koenig, E. and E. Traugott
    (1982) Divergence and apparent convergence in the development of “yet” and “still.” Berkeley Linguistics Society8: 170-180.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Longacre, R.E
    (1983) The Grammar of Discourse. New York: Plenum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lakoff, R
    (1971) If’s, and’s, and but’s about conjunction. In C.J. Fillmore and D.T. Langendoen (eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, pp.115-50.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. McCarthy, M. and R. Carter
    (1994) Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Peters, P
    (1985) Strategies for Student Writers. Brisbane: John Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Polanyi, L. and R. Scha
    (1983) The syntax of discourse. Text3: 261-270.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Pomerantz, A
    (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), The structure of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.57-101.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Posner, R
    (1980) Semantics and pragmatics of sentence connectives in natural language. In J.R. Searle , F. Kiefer , and M. Bierwisch (eds.), Speech act theory and pragmatics. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, pp.169-203. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑8964‑1_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8964-1_8 [Google Scholar]
  37. Quirk, R
    . et al (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Redeker, G
    (1990) Ideational and Pragmatic Markers. Journal of Pragmatics14: 367-381. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90095‑U
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90095-U [Google Scholar]
  39. Schiffrin, D
    (1986) Functions of “and” in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics10: 41-66. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(86)90099‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(86)90099-8 [Google Scholar]
  40. (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  41. Schourup, L
    (1985) Common discourse particles in English conversation: “like,” “well,” “y’know.”New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson
    (1986) Relevance. Cambridge, MA.Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sweetser, E
    (1990) From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  44. Traugott, E
    (1986) On the origins of “and” and “but” connectives in English. Studies in Language10-1: 137-150.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. van Dijk, T.A
    (1979) Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics3: 447-456. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(79)90019‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(79)90019-5 [Google Scholar]
  46. Warner, R
    (1985) Discourse connectives in English. New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Wilson, D
    (1994) Relevance and understanding. In G. Brown , K. Malmkjær , A. Pollitt , & J. Williams (eds.), Language and understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.8.4.03bel
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
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