Between commitment and certainty

References

1. Austin, J. L.
   (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Cutrer, M. L.
   (1994) Time and Tense in Narrative and in Everyday Language. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, San Diego.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E.
   (1997)  Then in conditionals. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(2), 1–28. 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.2.109
   https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.2.109 [Google Scholar]
4. Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E.
   (2000) Constructions with if, since, and because: Causality, epistemic stance, and clause order. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp.111–142). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219043.2.111
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.2.111 [Google Scholar]
5. Dancygier, B. , & Sweetser, E.
   (2005) Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486760
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486760 [Google Scholar]
6. Dowty, D. R.
   (1985) On recent analyses of the semantics of control. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8, 291–331. 10.1007/BF00630916
   https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630916 [Google Scholar]
7. Fauconnier, G.
   (1994) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511624582
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582 [Google Scholar]
8. Fauconnier, G.
   (1997) Mappings in thought and language. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174220
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220 [Google Scholar]
9. Fillmore, C. J. , Lee-Goldman, R. , & Rhodes, R.
   (2012) The FrameNet constructicon. In I. A. Sag & H. C. Boas (Eds.). Sign-based Construction Grammar (pp.313–363). Stanford: CSLI.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Kwon, I.
    (2012) The Korean evidential marker -te revisited: Its semantic constraints and distancing effects in Mental spaces theory. Constructions and Frames, 4(2), 152–185. 10.1075/cf.4.2.02kwo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.4.2.02kwo [Google Scholar]
13. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Langacker, R. W.
    (1990) Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 5–38. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 [Google Scholar]
15. Langacker, R. W.
    (1991) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Larson, R. K.
    (1991) Promise and the theory of control. Linguistic Inquiry, 22(1), 103–139
    [Google Scholar]
17. Lyons, J.
    (1981) Language and linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511809859
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809859 [Google Scholar]
18. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Sanders, T. , Sanders, J. , & Sweetser, E.
    (2009) Causality, cognition and communication: A mental space analysis of subjectivity in causal connectives. In T. Sanders & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp.19–60). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110224429.19
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224429.19 [Google Scholar]
20. Sanders, T. , Sanders, J. , & Sweetser, E.
    (2012) Responsible subjects and discourse causality: How mental spaces and perspective help identifying subjectivity in Dutch backward causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(2), 191–213. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.013 [Google Scholar]
21. Searle, J. R.
    (1989) How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(5), 535–558. 10.1007/BF00627773
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627773 [Google Scholar]
22. Sweetser, E.
    (2000) Blended spaces and performativity. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3), 305–333.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Traugott, E. C.
    (1993) The conflict promises/threatens to escalate into war. InProceedings of the 19th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society19 (pp.348–358).
    [Google Scholar]
24. Traugott, E. C.
    (1996) Subjectification and the development of epistemic meaning: The case of promise and threaten . In T. Swan & O. J. Westvik (Eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives (pp.185–210). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Verhagen, A.
    (1996) Sequential conceptualization and linear order. In E. H. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (pp.793–817). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Verhagen, A.
    (2000) “The girl that promised to become something”: An exploration into diachronic subjectification in Dutch. In T. F. Shannon & J. P. Snapper (Eds.), The Berkeley conference on Dutch linguistics 1997 (pp.197–208). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]