References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 March 2021
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Language and Social MindsThe Semantics and Pragmatics of Intersubjectivity, pp. 158 - 182Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Abbott, B. (1993). A pragmatic account of the definiteness effect in existencial sentences. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(1), 39–55.Google Scholar
Adolphs, S. (2008). Corpus and context: Investigating pragmatic functions in spoken discourse (Vol. 30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding pragmatic markers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K., & Rühlemann, C. (2015). Corpus pragmatics: A handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Akimoto, M. (2000). The grammaticalization of the verb ‘pray’. In Fischer, O., Rosenbach, A. & Stein, D. (Eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English (pp. 67–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A. (1988). The acquisition of aspect and modality: The case of past reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A. (2006). The acquisition of aspect and modality: The case of past reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ames, C. S., & Jarrold, C. (2007). The problem with using eye-gaze to infer desire: A deficit of cue inference in children with autism spectrum disorder? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(9), 1761–1775.Google Scholar
Anderson, D. K., Lord, C., Risi, S., DiLavore, P. S., Shulman, C., Thurm, A., … & Pickles, A. (2007). Patterns of growth in verbal abilities among children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 75(4), 594.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1971). The grammar of case: Towards a localistic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Apperly, I. A. (2008). Beyond simulation–theory and theory–theory: Why social cognitive neuroscience should use its own concepts to study ‘Theory of Mind’. Cognition, 107(1), 266–283.Google Scholar
Apperly, I. A. (2010). Mindreaders: The cognitive basis of ‘theory of mind’. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M. & Zeschel, A. (2010). Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, 5(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Arslan, S., Aksu-Koç, A., Maviş, İ. & Bastiaanse, R. (2014). Finite verb inflections for evidential categories and source identification in Turkish agrammatic Broca’s aphasia. Journal of Pragmatics, 70, 165–181.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J. & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.Google Scholar
Ball, J. (1978). A pragmatic analysis of autistic children’s language with respect to aphasic and normal language development. Unpublished undergraduate dissertation, Melbourne University, Australia.Google Scholar
Bangerter, A., & Clark, H. H. (2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science, 27(2), 195–225.Google Scholar
Bara, B. G. (2010). Cognitive pragmatics: The mental processes of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (Eds.). (2000). Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Baron‐Cohen, S. (1989). Perceptual role taking and protodeclarative pointing in autism. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7(2), 113–127.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S. (1991). Precursors to a theory of mind: Understanding attention in others. In Whiten, A. (Ed.), Natural theories of mind: Evolution, development and simulation of everyday mindreading. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S. (1997). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S. (2000). Theory of mind and autism: A fifteen year review. In Baron-Cohen, S., Tager-Flusberg, H. & Cohen, D. J. (Eds.), Understanding other minds – Perspectives from developmental cognitive neuroscience (2nd ed., pp. 3–20). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M. & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a ‘theory of mind’? Cognition, 21(1), 37–46.Google Scholar
Baron‐Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M. & Frith, U. (1986). Mechanical, behavioural and intentional understanding of picture stories in autistic children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4(2), 113–125.Google Scholar
Barresi, J., & Moore, C. (2008). The neuroscience of social understanding. In Zlatev, J., Racine, T., Sinha, C. & Itkonen, E. (Eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barrett, M. (1999). An introduction to the nature of language and to the central themes and issues in the study of language development. In Barrett, M. (Ed.), The development of language (pp. 1–24). East Sussex: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Barrouillet, P., Grosset, N. & Lecas, J. F. (2000). Conditional reasoning by mental models: Chronometric and developmental evidence. Cognition, 75(3), 237–266.Google Scholar
Bartsch, K., & Wellman, H. M. (1995). Children talk about the mind. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., Camaioni, L. & Volterra, V. (1975). The acquisition of performatives prior to speech. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 21(3), 205–226.Google Scholar
Bates, E., Camaioni, L. & Volterra, V. (1998[1975]). The acquisition of performatives prior to speech. In Kasher, Asa (Ed.), Pragmatics: Critical concepts (Vol. 6, pp. 274–295). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bazzanella, C. (2006). Discourse markers in Italian: Towards a compositional meaning. In Fisher, K. (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 449–464). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becchio, C., & Bertone, C. (2004). Wittgenstein running: Neural mechanisms of collective intentionality and we-mode. Consciousness and Cognition, 13(1), 123–133.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. (1971 [1958]). Subjectivity in language (Meek, M. E., Trans.). In Problems in general linguistics (pp. 223–230). Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press. (Reprinted from 1971).Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Reppen, R. & Conrad, S. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: Perspectives from corpus linguistics and multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of Child Language, 29(2), 449–488.Google Scholar
Bleuler, E. (1950[1916]). Dementia praecox or the group of schizophrenias. New York: International Universities.Google Scholar
Bowler, D. E., & Benton, T. G. (2005). Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: Relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biological Reviews, 80(2), 205–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradford, E. E. F., Jentzsch, I. & Gomez, J.-C. (2015). From self to social cognition: Theory of mind mechanisms and their relation to executive functioning. Cognition, 138, 21–34.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine. (2010). English adjectives of comparison: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. Vol. 63. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (2001). Historical discourse analysis. In Schiffrin, Deborah, Tannen, Deborah & Hamilton, Heidi E. (Eds), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 138–150). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (2017). The evolution of pragmatic markers in English: Pathways of change: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, L., & Prieto, P. (2017). (Im)politeness: Prosody and gesture. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. & Kádár, D. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness (pp. 323–355). New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brugman, C. M., & Macaulay, M. (2015). Characterizing evidentiality. Linguistic Typology, 19(2), 201–237.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. (1981). The social context of language acquisition. Language and Communication, 1, 155–178.Google Scholar
Burnage, G., & Dunlop, D. (1992). Encoding the British National Corpus. In Aarts, J. M., de Haan, P. & Oostdijk, N. (Eds.), English language corpora: Design, analysis, exploitation (pp. 79–95). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Bushneil, I. W. R., Sai, F. & Mullin, J. T. (1989). Neonatal recognition of the mother’s face. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7(1), 3–15.Google Scholar
Butterfill, S. A., & Apperly, I. A. (2013). How to construct a minimal theory of mind. Mind & Language, 28(5), 606–637.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form (Vol. 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, R. M. J. (2005). The rational imagination: How people create counterfactual alternatives to reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Camaioni, L. (1997). The emergence of intentional communication in ontogeny, phylogeny, and pathology. European Psychologist, 2(3), 216–225.Google Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, T. (2014). The development of speech acts. In Matthews, D. (Ed.), Pragmatic development in first language acquisition (pp. 37–52). Amsterdam /Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cao, G. S. (1995). Jindai hanyu zhuci [The auxiliary particles of Modern Chinese]. Beijing: Yuwen chubanshe [Language & Culture Press].Google Scholar
Carey, K. (1994). Pragmatics, subjectivity and the grammaticalization of the English perfect. PhD. University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Carey, K. (1995). Subjectification and the development of the English perfect. In Steinand, D. & Wright, S. (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives (pp. 83–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, G. N. (1978). Reference to kinds in English. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Ceng, L. Y. (2005). ‘Wo kan’ yu ‘ni kan’ de Zhuguanhua [The subjectification of ‘wo kan’ and ‘ni kan’]. Hanyu Xuexi [Chinese Studies], 2.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constrains on information flow. In Tomlin, R. (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 21–51). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chao, Y. R. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chappell, H. (2001). A typology of evidential markers in Sinitic languages. In Chappell, H. (Ed.), Chinese grammar: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives (pp. 56–85). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Charman, T., Swettenham, J., Baron-Cohen, S., Cox, A., Baird, G. & Drew, A. (1997). Infants with autism: An investigation of empathy, pretend play, joint attention, and imitation. Developmental Psychology, 33(5), 781.Google Scholar
Chen, L. (2006). Qianxi hanyu biaoji ‘ni kankan’ de xingcheng yuanyin [A general analysis of the formation of the discourse marker ‘ni kankan’]. Yuwen xuekan [The Journal of Language], (10), 46–47.Google Scholar
Chen, Q. R. (2008). Hanyu timao yanjiu de leixingxue shiye [A study on the aspectual system of Mandarin from a typological perspective]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Choi, S. (1995). The development of epistemic sentence-ending modal forms and functions in Korean children. In Bybee, J. & Fleischman, S. (Eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse (pp. 165–204). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chor, W. (2013). From ‘direction’ to ‘positive evaluation’: On the grammaticalization, subjectification and intersubjectification of faan1 ‘return’ in Cantonese. Language and Linguistics, 14(1), 91.Google Scholar
Ciaramidaro, A., Adenzato, M., Enrici, I., Erk, S., Pia, L., Bara, B. & Walter, H. (2007). The intentional network: How the brain reads varieties of intentions. Neuropsychologia, 45, 3105–3113.Google Scholar
Citko, B. (2003). On the syntax and semantics of English and Polish concessive conditionals. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 37–54.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (2007). Conventionality and contrast in language and language acquisition. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 115, 11–23.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (2014). Two pragmatic principles in language use and acquisition. In Matthews, En D. (Ed.), Pragmatic development in first language acquisition (pp. 105–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.10.07claGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. A. (1991). Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: APA Books.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(1), 56–72.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshi, A. K., Webber, B. & Sag, I. (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. S., Sasaki, J. Y. & German, T. C. (2015). Specialized mechanisms for theory of mind: Are mental representations special because they are mental or because they are representations? Cognition, 136, 49–63.Google Scholar
Cornillie, B. (2007). Evidentiality and epistemic modality in Spanish (semi-) auxiliaries: A cognitive-functional approach (Vol. 5). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cornillie, B. (2009). Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language, 16(1), 44–62.Google Scholar
Cornillie, B., & Delbeque, N. (Eds.). (2006). Topics in subjectification and modalization. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 20.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Thompson, S. (2000). Concessive patterns in conversation. In Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Kortmann, B. (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast (pp. 381–410). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2007). The origins of grammar in the verbalization of experience. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3), 339–382.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2010). The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics, 48(1), 1–48.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., & Gillings, M. (2019). Pragmatics: Data trends. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 4–14.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., & Kytö, M. (2010). Early modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, О. s., & Hedin, E. (2000). Current relevance and event reference. In Dahl, О. (Ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (pp. 385–402). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dai, Y. J. (1997). Xiandai hanyu shiti xitong yanjiu [A study of aspect in Modern Chinese]. Hangzou: Zhejiang Educational Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2012). Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidse, K. (1999). The semantics of cardinal versus enumerative existential constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(3), 203–250.Google Scholar
Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.). (2010). Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Topics in English Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (2001). Subjective, intersubjective, objective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2009). The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2), 159–190.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2012). The 400 million word Corpus of Historical American English (1810–2009). In Hegedűs, I. & Fodor, A. (Eds.), English historical linguistics 2010 (pp. 219–249). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
De Clerck, B. (2006). The imperative in present-day English: A corpus-based, pragmatic analysis. Belgium: Universiteit Gent.Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. (1997). Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 1, 33–52.Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. (2001). The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 369–382.Google Scholar
Dennis, M., Lazenby, A. L. & Lockyer, L. (2001). Inferential language in high-function children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(1), 47–54.Google Scholar
de Rosnay, M., Fink, E., Begeer, S., Slaughter, V. & Peterson, C. (2014). Talking theory of mind talk: Young school-aged children's everyday conversation and understanding of mind and emotion. Journal of Child Language, 41(5), 1179–1193.Google Scholar
de Rosnay, M., & Hughes, C. (2006). Conversation and theory of mind: Do children talk their way to socio‐cognitive understanding? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24(1), 7–37.Google Scholar
de Ruiter, L. E., & Theakston, A. L. (2017). First language acquisition. In The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 59–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Devos, M., & van der Wal, J. (2012). Grammaticalization and (inter) subjectification in African languages. Africana Linguistica, 18(1), 3.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2006). Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 463–489.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2011). Grammaticalization and language acquisition. In Narrog, H. & Heine, B. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 130–141) (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 97–141.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 263–287.Google Scholar
Divjak, D., & Arppe, A. (2013). Extracting prototypes from exemplars. What can corpus data tell us about concept representation? Cognitive Linguistics, 24(2), 221–274.Google Scholar
Dobbinson, S., Perkins, M. R. & Boucher, J. (1998). Structural patterns in conversations with a woman who has autism. Journal of Communication Disorders, 31(2), 113–134.Google Scholar
Dostie, G. (2004). Pragmaticalization et Marqueurs Discursifs. Analyse Sémantique et Traitement Lexicographique. Brussels: De Boeck.Google Scholar
Downing, A. (2001). ‘Surely you knew!’: Surely as a marker of evidentiality and stance. Functions of Language, 8(2), 251–282.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., Hobson, R. P. & Hobson, J. A. (2014). Dialogic resonance and intersubjective engagement in autism. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 411–441.Google Scholar
Eales, M. J. (1993). Pragmatic impairments in adults with childhood diagnoses of autism or developmental receptive language disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 23(4), 593–617.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics – Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 558–589.Google Scholar
Engel, A. K., Friston, K. J. & Kragic, D. (2014). Where’s the action? In Engel, A. K., Friston, K. J. & Kragic, D. (Eds.), The pragmatic turn: Toward action-oriented views in cognitive science. Cambridge/London: MIT.Google Scholar
Enrici, I., Adenzato, M., Cappa, S., Bara, B. & Tettamanti, M. (2011). Intention processing in communication: A common brain network for language and gestures. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 2415–2431.Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2007). Glossary of cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Faller, M. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD dissertation. Stanford University, CA.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. (1987). The semantics of clause and verb for relational processes in English. In Halliday, M. & Fawcett, R. (Eds.), New developments in systemic linguistics. Vol. 1: Theory and Description (pp. 130–183). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Felder, E., Müller, M. & Vogel, F. (2012). (Hgg.): Korpuspragmatik. Themati-sche Korpora als Basis diskurslinguistischer Analysen von Texten und Gesprächen. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ferrari, L., & Sweetser, E. (2012). Subjectivity and upwards projection in mental space structure. In Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E. (Eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective (pp. 47–68).. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Fine, J., Bartolucci, G. & Sc Szatmari, P. (1994). Cohesive discourse in pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 315–329.Google Scholar
Fitneva, S. A. (2008). The role of evidentiality in Bulgarian children’s reliability judgments. Journal of child Language, 35(4), 845–868.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. (2004). Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the historical construction of interlocutor stance: From stance markers to discourse markers. Discourse Studies, 6(4), 427–448.Google Scholar
Foolen, A. (2019). Quo vadis pragmatics? From adaptation to participatory sense-making. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 39–46.Google Scholar
Friedman, V. (1994). Assertive verb forms in Lak. In Aronson, Howard (Ed.), Non-Slavic languages of the USSR: Papers from the fourth conference (pp. 114–119). Columbus: Slavica.Google Scholar
Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127.Google Scholar
Friston, K., Samothrakis, S. & Montague, R. (2012). Active inference and agency: Optimal control without cost functions. Biological Cybernetics, 106(8–9), 523–541.Google Scholar
Frith, C. D. (2004). Schizophrenia and theory of mind. Psychological Medicine, 34(3), 385–389.Google Scholar
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., McEnery, T. & Boyd, E. (2017). Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: The effect of task and speaker style. Applied Linguistics, 38(5), 613–637.Google Scholar
Garton, A. F. (1983). An approach to the study of determiners in early language development. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 12(5), 513–525.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
German, T. P., & Hehman, J. A. (2006). Representational and executive selection resources in ‘theory of mind’: Evidence from compromised belief-desire reasoning in old age. Cognition, 101(1), 129–152.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A., Geye, H. M. & Ellis Weismer, S. (2005). The role of language and communication impairments within autism. Language Disorders and Developmental Theory, 73–93.Google Scholar
Ghesquière, L. (2014). The directionality of (inter)subjectification in the English noun phrase: Pathways of change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ghesquière, L., Brems, L. & de Velde, F. V. (2012). Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification: Typology and operationalization. English Text Construction, 5(1), 128–152.Google Scholar
Ghesquière, L., & de Velde, F. V. (2011). A corpus-based account of the development of English such and Dutch zulk: Identification, intensification and (inter) subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(4), 765–797.Google Scholar
Ghezzi, C., & Molinelli, P. (2014). Italian guarda, prego and dai: Pragmatic markers and the left and right periphery. In Beeching, K. & Detges, U. (Eds.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change (pp. 115–150). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (2012). The psychology of utterance processing: Context vs salience. In Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K. M. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 151–167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1993). English grammar: A function-based introduction (Vol. 2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (2009). The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (2006). Simulating minds: The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mindreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (2012). Theory of mind. In Margolis, E., Samuels, R. & Stich, S. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Cognitive Science (pp. 402–424). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gómez, J. C., Sarria, E. & Tamarit, J. (1993). The comparative study of early communication and theories of mind: Ontogeny, phylogeny and pathology. In Baron-Cohen, S, Tager-Flusberg, H. & Cohen, D. (Eds.), Understanding other minds: Perspectives from autism (pp. 397–426). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A., & Graf, P. (1988). Knowing how you know: Young children’s ability to identify and remember the sources of their beliefs. Child Development, 59(5), 1366–1371.Google Scholar
Grant, C. M., Riggs, K. J. & Boucher, J. (2004). Counterfactual and mental state reasoning in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 177–188.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2003). Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2010). Behavioral profiles: A fine-grained and quantitative approach in corpus-based lexical semantics. The Mental Lexicon, 5(3), 323–346.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Otani, N. (2010). Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based perspective on synonymy and antonymy. ICAME Journal, 34, 121–150.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. & Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.). (2006). Corpora in cogmtive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S. (2000). De distributie van niet-anaforisch er buiten de eerste zinsplaats. Sociolectische, functionele en psycholinguistische aspecten van er’s status als presentatief signaal. PhD thesis. University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S., Geeraerts, D. & Speelman, D. (2007). A case for a cogntive corpus linguistics. In Gonzalez-Marquez, M., Mittelberg, I., Coulson, S. & Spivey, M. J. (Eds.), Methods in cogntive linguistics (pp. 149–69). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S., Speelman, D. & Geeraerts, D. (2002). Regressing on er. statistical analysis of texts and language variation. In Morin, A. & Sébillot, P. (Eds.), Sixth International Conference on the Statistical Analysis of Textual Data (pp. 335–346). Rennes: Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique.Google Scholar
Guardamagna, C. (2017). Reportative evidentiality, attribution and epistemic modality: A corpus-based diachronic study of Latin secundum NP (‘according to NP’). Language Sciences, 59, 159–179.Google Scholar
Guentchéva, Zlatka. (1996). Le médiatif en bulgare. In Guentchéva, Z (Ed.), L’énonciation médiatisée (pp. 47–70). Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 274–307.Google Scholar
Hale, C. M., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (2005). Social communication in children with autism: The relationship between theory of mind and discourse development. Autism, 9(2), 157–178.Google Scholar
Hamann, K., Warneken, F., Greenberg, J. R. & Tomasello, M. (2011). Collaboration encourages equal sharing in children but not in chimpanzees. Nature, 476(7360), 328–331.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language and Communicative Processes. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, M.-B. M. (2008). Particles at the semantics/pragmatics interface: Synchronic and diachronic issues: A study with special reference to the French phrasal adverbs. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Happé, F. G. (1993). Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: A test of relevance theory. Cognition, 48(2), 101–119.Google Scholar
Happé, F. G. (1994). An advanced test of theory of mind: Understanding of story characters’ thoughts and feelings by able autistic, mentally handicapped, and normal children and adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24(2), 129–154.Google Scholar
Happé, F. G. (1995). The role of age and verbal ability in the theory of mind task performance of subjects with autism. Child Development, 66(3), 843–855.Google Scholar
Haselow, A. (2012). Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language & Communication, 32(3), 182–204.Google Scholar
Haselow, A. & Hancil, S. (2018). Rethinking language change from a dialogic perspective. Language Sciences, 68, 1–5.Google Scholar
Henrich, N., & Henrich, J. P. (2007). Why humans cooperate: A cultural and evolutionary explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hepper, P. G., Scott, D. & Shahidullah, S. (1993). Newborn and fetal response to maternal voice. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 11(3), 147–153.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2015). From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 113–147.Google Scholar
Hobson, R. P. (1993). The emotional origins of social understanding. Philosophical Psychology, 6(3), 227–249.Google Scholar
Hobson, R. P., & Lee, A. (1998). Hello and goodbye: A study of social engagement in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 28(2), 117–127.Google Scholar
Hobson, R. P., & Meyer, J. A. (2005). Foundations for self and other: A study in autism. Developmental Science, 8(6), 481–491.Google Scholar
Hommel, B. (2013). Ideomotor action control: On the perceptual grounding of voluntary actions and agents. In Prinz, W., Beisert, M. & Herwig, A. (Eds.), Action science: Foundations of an emerging discipline (pp. 113–136). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K. & Zeileis, A. (2006). Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15(3), 651–674.Google Scholar
Howard, A. A., Mayeux, L. & Naigles, L. R. (2008). Conversational correlates of children’s acquisition of mental verbs and a theory of mind. First Language, 28(4), 375–402.Google Scholar
Hu, M. Y. (1981). Beijinghua de yuqici he tanci [Sentence final particles and interjections in Pekinese]. Zhonguo Yuwen [Chinese Language], 5(6), 416–423.Google Scholar
Hughes, C., & Leekam, S. (2004). What are the links between theory of mind and social relations? Review, reflections and new directions for studies of typical and atypical development. Social Development, 13(4), 590–619.Google Scholar
Husserl, E. ([1936] 1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Iljic, R. (1990). The verbal suffix -guo in Mandarin Chinese and the notion of recurrence. Lingua, 81, 301–326.Google Scholar
Jäeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A. (Ed.) (2013). Cognitive linguistics: The quantitative turn. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Jansegers, M. & Gries, S. T. (2017). Towards a dynamic behavioral profile: A diachronic study of polysemous sentir in Spanish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Epub ahead of print 6 October 2017. DOI: 10.1515/cllt-2016-0080.Google Scholar
Jaswal, V., & Akhtar, N. (2019). Being versus appearing socially uninterested: Challenging assumptions about social motivation in autism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42, E82. doi:10.1017/S0140525X18001826Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K., & Allan, K. (2012). Introduction. In Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics, pp. 1–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.001Google Scholar
Johanson, L. (2003). Evidentiality in Turkic. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. (Eds.), Studies in evidentiality (pp. 273–291). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H., & Taavitsainen, I. (2014). Diachronic corpus pragmatics: Intersections and interactions. In Taavitsainen, I., Jucker, A. H. & Tuominen, J. (Eds.), Diachronic corpus oragmatics (pp. 3–26). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kahn, C. H. (1966.). The Greek verb ‘to be’ and the concept of being. Foundations of Language, 2, 245–265.Google Scholar
Kalandadze, T., Norbury, C., Nærland, T. & Næss, K. A. B. (2018). Figurative language comprehension in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analytic review. Autism, 22(2), 99–117.Google Scholar
Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous Child, 2(3), 217–250.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). Micro-and macrodevelopmental changes in language acquisition and other representational systems. Cognitive Science, 3(2), 91–117.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2),193–218.Google Scholar
Keller, E., & Warner, S. T. (1979). Gambits: Conversational tools. Vol. 1: Openers. Vol. 2: Links. Hull: Public Service Commission of Canada, Language Training Branch, English Program Development Unit.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. H., & Drew, P. (2014.) The putative preference for offers over requests. In Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Ketrez, F. N. (2014). Harmonic cues for speech segmentation: A cross-linguistic corpus study on child-directed speech. Journal of Child Language, 41(2), 439–461.Google Scholar
Keupp, S., Behne, T., & Rakoczy, H. (2013). Why do children overimitate? Normativity is crucial. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 392–406.Google Scholar
Kleider, H. M., Pezdek, K., Goldinger, S. D. & Kirk, A. (2008). Schema‐driven source misattribution errors: Remembering the expected from a witnessed event. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 22(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T., & LeBaron, C. D. (2003). Reconsidering common ground. ECSCW 2003, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kovács, Á. M., Téglás, E. & Endress, A. D. (2010). The social sense: Susceptibility to others’ beliefs in human infants and adults. Science, 330(6012), 1830–1834.Google Scholar
Küntay, A. C., Nakamura, K. & Ateş-Şen, A. B. (2014). Crosslinguistic and crosscultural approaches to pragmatic development. In Pragmatic development in first language acquisition (pp. 317–342).Google Scholar
Kushnir, T., Wellman, H. M. & Gelman, S. A. (2008). The role of preschoolers’ social understanding in evaluating the informativeness of causal interventions. Cognition, 107(3), 1084–1092.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Laakso, A., & Smith, L. B. (2007). Pronouns and verbs in adult speech to children: A corpus analysis. Journal of Child Language, 34(4), 725–763.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society, 1(1), 97–120.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?. Cognitive Linguistics (includes Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography), 1(1), 39–74.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1985). Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In Haiman, J. (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 109–150). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. I). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Descriptive application (Vol. II). Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow, M. and Kemmer, S. (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2005). Dynamicity, fictivity, and scanning: The imaginative basis of logic and linguistic meaning. In Pecher, D. & Zwaan, R. A. (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language and thinking (pp. 164–197). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2009). Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lazard, G. (1996). Le médiatif en persan. In Guentchéva, Z. (Ed.), L’énonciation médiatisée (pp. 21–30). Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Lazard, G. (1999). Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other. Linguistic Typology, 3, 91–109.Google Scholar
Lazard, G. (2001). On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 359–367.Google Scholar
Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1988). Autistic children’s understanding of seeing, knowing and believing. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6(4), 315–324.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levshina, N. (2015). How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. K. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Li, C., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Li, H., & Rao, N. (2000). Parental influences on Chinese literacy development: A comparison of preschoolers in Beijing, Hong Kong, and Singapore. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(1), 82–90.Google Scholar
Liang, L. Y., Dandan, W. U. & Hui, L. I. (2019). Chinese preschoolers’ acquisition of temporal adverbs indicating past, present, and future: A corpus-based study. Journal of Child Language, 46(4), 760–784.Google Scholar
Lieven, E., Salomo, D. & Tomasello, M. (2009). Two-year-old children's production of multiword utterances: A usage-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3), 481–507.Google Scholar
Lin, J. W. (2006). Time in a language without tense: The case of Chinese. Journal of Semantics, 23, 1–53.Google Scholar
Lin, J. W. (2007). Predicate restriction, discontinuity property and the meaning of the perfective marker Guo in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 16, 237–257.Google Scholar
Lin, X. N. (2004). Shixi Tang Song shiqi de ‘guo’ yufahua jincheng chihuan de yuanyin [An analysis of the slowdown in the grammaticalization process of guo during the Tang and Song periods]. Yuyan Kexue [Linguistic Sciences], 6, 42–52.Google Scholar
Linell, P., & Lindström, J. (2016). Partial intersubjectivity and sufficient understandings for current practical purposes: On a specialized practice in Swedish conversation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 39(2), 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, J. (2009). Shitai zhuci de yanjiu yu VO guo [A study on tense particles and the VO guo construction]. In Li, F., Long, Y. Y. & Cai, Z. Z. (Eds.), Hanyu shiti de lishi yanjiu [Diachronic study on the tense and aspect system of Chinese]. Beijing: Yuwen Chubanshe [Language & Culture Press].Google Scholar
Liu, Y. H. (1986). Duihua zhong ‘shuo’ ‘xiang’ ‘kan’ de yizhong teshu yongfa [A particular usage of ‘shuo’ ‘xiang’ ‘kan’ in interaction]. Zhongguoyuwen, 3 [Chinese Language].Google Scholar
Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 1(1), 9–33.Google Scholar
López-Couso, M. J. (2010). Subjectification and intersubjectification. In Jucker, A. H. & Taavitsainen, I. (Eds.), Historical Pragmatics (pp. 127–163). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Lord, C., & Paul, R. (1997). Language and communication in autism. In Cohen, D. J. & Volkmar, F. R. (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive development disorders (2nd edn., pp. 195–225). Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
Loveland, K. A. (1993). Autism, affordances, and the self. In Neisser, U. (Ed.), The perceived self: Ecological and inter-personal sources of self-knowledge (pp. 237–253). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loveland, K. A., & Landry, S. H. (1986). Joint attention and language in autism and developmental language delay. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 16(3), 335–349.Google Scholar
Lü, S. X. (1999). Xiandai hanyu babai ci [800 words from Modern Mandarin]. Beijing: Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, D. E.,Young, A. G., & Keil, F. C. (2007). The hidden structure of overimitation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(50), 19751–19756.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1975). Deixis as the source of reference. In Keenan, E. (Ed.), Formal semantics of natural language (pp. 61–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1982). Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In Jarvella, R. J. & Klein, W. (Eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 101–124). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1994). Subjecthood and subjectivity. In Yaguello, M. (Ed.), Subjecthood and subjectivity: The status of the subject in linguistic theory (pp. 9–17). Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Lyons, J., & John, L. (1995). Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maciejewska, E. (2019). Discourse analysis as a tool for uncovering strengths in communicative practices of autistic individuals. Discourse Studies, 21(3), 300–316.Google Scholar
Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Schloerscheidt, A. M. & Milne, A. B. (1999). Tales of the unexpected: Executive function and person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 200.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2006). Emergentism – Use often and with care. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 729–740.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Fromm, D. (2016). Child Language Data Exchange System Tools for Clinical Analysis. Paper presented at the Seminars in speech and languagMandler, J. M. (1992). How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 99(4), 587.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Snow, C. (1985). The child language data exchange system. Journal of Child Language, 12(2), 271–295.Google Scholar
Maslen, R. J., Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. & Tomasello, M. (2004). A dense corpus study of past tense and plural overregularization in English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research.Google Scholar
Matsui, T. (2014). Children’s understanding of linguistic expressions of certainty and evidentiality. In Matthews, D. (Ed.), Pragmatic development in first language acquisition (pp. 295–316). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Matsui, T., & Fitneva, S. A. (2009). Knowing how we know: Evidentiality and cognitive development. In Fitneva, S. A. & Matsui, T (Eds.), Evidentiality: A window into language and cognitive development (New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 125, pp. 1–11). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Matsui, T., Yamamoto, T. & McCagg, P. (2006). On the role of language in children’s early understanding of others as epistemic beings. Cognitive Development, 21(2), 158–173.Google Scholar
McCafferty, S. G. (1998). Nonverbal expression and L2 private speech. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 73–96.Google Scholar
McEnery, A., & Xiao, Z. (2004). The Lancaster Corpus of Mandarin Chinese: A corpus for monolingual and contrastive language study. Religion, 17, 3–4.Google Scholar
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2011). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, T., Love, R. & Brezina, V. (2017). Introduction: Compiling and analysing the Spoken British National Corpus 2014. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 311–318.Google Scholar
Miller, R., & Siegmund, D. (1982). Maximally selected chi square statistics. Biometrics, 1011–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milsark, G. (1977). Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis, 3, 1–29.Google Scholar
Moll, H., & Tomasello, M. (2007). How 14-and 18-month-olds know what others have experienced. Developmental Psychology, 43(2),309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mori, J., & Hayashi, M. (2006). The achievement of intersubjectivity through embodied completions: A study of interactions between first and second language speakers. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 195–219.Google Scholar
Mundy, P., Sigman, M. & Kasari, C. (1994). Joint attention, developmental level, and symptom presentation in autism. Development and Psychopathology, 6(3), 389–401.Google Scholar
Mundy, P., Sigman, M., Ungerer, J. & Sherman, T. (1986). Defining the social deficits of autism: The contribution of non‐verbal communication measures. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 27(5), 657–669.Google Scholar
Mushin, I. (2001). Evidentiality and epistemological stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Narrog, H. (2009). Modality in Japanese: The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Narrog, H. (2010). (Inter)subjectification in the area of modality and mood – Concepts and cross-linguistic realities. In Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (pp. 385–429). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Narrog, H. (2012). Beyond intersubjectification: Textual usages of modality and mood in subordinate clauses as part of speech orientation. English Text Construction, 5(1), 29–52.Google Scholar
Nenadic, O., & Greenacre, M. (2007). Correspondence analysis in R, with two-and three-dimensional graphics: The ca package. Journal of Statistical Software, 20(3).Google Scholar
Norén, K. & Linell, P. (2007). Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and contexts. An empirical substantiations. Pragmatics, 17, 387–416.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (2009). Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 866–891.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. (2001a). Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 383–400.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. (2001b). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. (2012). Notions of (inter)subjectivity. English Text Construction, 5(1), 53–76.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J., & Byloo, P. (2015). Competing modals: Beyond (inter) subjectification. Diachronica, 32(1), 34–68.Google Scholar
Oakes, M. P. (1998). Statistics for corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, E., & Solomon, O. (2004). Practical logic and autism. In Edgerton, R. & Casey, Connerly (Eds.), A companion to psychological anthropology: Modernity and psychocultural change (pp. 140–167). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ochs, E., Solomon, O. & Sterponi, L. (2005). Limitations and transformations of habitus in child-directed communication. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 547–583.Google Scholar
O’Connor, P. (1994). ‘You could feel it through the skin’: Agency and positioning in the prisoners’ stabbing stories. Text, 14, 45–75.Google Scholar
O’Neill, D. K. (1996). Two‐year‐old children’s sensitivity to a parent’s knowledge state when making requests. Child Development, 67(2), 659–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, D. K., & Chong, S. (2001). Preschool children’s difficulty understanding the types of information obtained through the five senses. Child Development, 72(3), 803–815.Google Scholar
O’Neill, D. K., & Gopnik, A. (1991). Young children’s ability to identify the sources of their beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 27(3), 390.Google Scholar
Onishi, K. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science, 308(5719), 255–258.Google Scholar
Onodera, N. O. (2004). Japanese discourse markers: Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Onodera, N. O. (2007). Interplay of (inter)subjectivity and social norm. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 8(2), 239–267.Google Scholar
Onodera, N. O., & Suzuki, R. (2007). Historical changes in Japanese: With special focus on subjectivity and intersubjectivity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 8(2).Google Scholar
Ozonoff, S., Pennington, B. F. & Rogers, S. J. (1991). Executive function deficits in high‐functioning autistic individuals: Relationship to theory of mind. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 32(7), 1081–1105.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (2003). Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. Modality in Contemporary English, 1, 17.Google Scholar
Pan, H., & Lee, P. (2004). The role of pragmatics in interpreting the Chinese perfective markers guo and le. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(3), 441–466.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. (2000). Modality: Issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface. (Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface 6.) Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A., Li, P., Choi, Y. & Han, C. (2007). Evidentiality in language and cognition. Cognition, 103, 253–299.Google Scholar
Pascual, E. (2006). Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 245–267.Google Scholar
Pascual, E. (2014). Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse (Vol. 47). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Penn, D. C., & Povinelli, D. J. (2007). On the lack of evidence that non-human animals possess anything remotely resembling a ‘Theory of Mind’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1480), 731–744.Google Scholar
Perner, J., Frith, U., Leslie, A. M. & Leekam, S. R. (1989). Exploration of the autistic child’s theory of mind: Knowledge, belief, and communication. Child Development, 689–700.Google Scholar
Perner, J., Leekam, S. R. & Wimmer, H. (1987). Three‐year‐olds’ difficulty with false belief: The case for a conceptual deficit. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(2), 125–137.Google Scholar
Perner, J., & Ruffman, T. (2005). Infants’ insight into the mind: How deep? Science, 308(5719), 214–216.Google Scholar
Perucchini, P., & Camaioni, L. (1993). When intentional communication emerges. In Developmental dissociations between declarative and imperative functions of gestures. Paper presented to Developmental Conference of the British Psychological Society, Birmingham.Google Scholar
Pillow, B. H. (1989). Early understanding of perception as a source of knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 47(1), 116–129.Google Scholar
Pillow, B. H., Hill, V., Boyce, A. & Stein, C. (2000). Understanding inference as a source of knowledge: Children’s ability to evaluate the certainty of deduction, perception, and guessing. Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 169.Google Scholar
Pisula, E. (2010). The autistic mind in the light of neuropsychological studies. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis.Google Scholar
Pleyer, M., Hartmann, S., Winters, J. & Zlatev, J. (2017). Interaction and iconicity in the evolution of language: Introduction to the special issue. Interaction Studies, 18(3), 303–313. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18.3.01pleGoogle Scholar
Plungian, V. A., & van der Auwera, J. (2006). Towards a typology of discontinuous past marking. Language Typology and Universals, 59(4), 317–349.Google Scholar
Poggi, I. (2009). The language of interjections. In Multimodal signals: Cognitive and algorithmic issues (pp. 170–186). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Povinelli, D. J., & Giambrone, S. (1999). Inferring other minds: Failure of the argument by analogy. Philosophical Topics, 27, 167–201.Google Scholar
Pratt, C., & Bryant, P. (1990). Young children understand that looking leads to knowing (so long as they are looking into a single barrel). Child Development, 61(4), 973–982.Google Scholar
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(04), 515–526.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 75–102). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. Discourse description: diverse analyses of a fund raising text (pp. 295–325).Google Scholar
Prizant, B. M., & Wetherby, A. M. (1987). Communicative intent: A framework for understanding social-communicative behavior in autism. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 26(4), 472–479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pullum, G. K., & Huddleston, R. (2002). Negation. In Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (pp. 785–849). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Qiang, X. N. (2007). Tawen yu ziwen – cong putonghua ‘ma’ he ‘ne’ shuoqi [Third-person and reflexive questions. A discussion on Mandarin ‘ma’ and ‘ne’]. Yuyan Kexue, 5.Google Scholar
Qiang, X. N. (2008). Zhiqing zhuangtai yu zhichen yuqici ‘ma’ [Factual modality and the indicative mood particle ‘ma’]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue, 2.Google Scholar
Qu, C. X., &Li, P. (2004). ‘Lun xiandaihanyu jumoqingtaixuci jiqi yingyi’: yi ‘ba’ de yupian gongneng weili. Waiyu Xuekan, 6, 1–10.Google Scholar
Raymond, M., & Rousset, F. (1995). An exact test for population differentiation. Evolution, 49(6), 1280–1283.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2012). Contextualism: Some varieties. In Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K. M. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 135–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reich, W. (2011). The cooperative nature of communicative acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1349–1365.Google Scholar
Reich, W. (2012). In defense of the evolutionary approach to human communication: Reply to Huang and Wu. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(1), 123–125.Google Scholar
Rhee, S. (2012). Context-induced reinterpretation and (inter) subjectification: The case of grammaticalization of sentence-final particles. Language Sciences, 34(3), 284–300.Google Scholar
Rollins, P. R., & Snow, C. E. (1998). Shared attention and grammatical development in typical children and children with autism. Journal of Child Language, 25(3), 653–673.Google Scholar
Rubovitz, T. (1999). Evidential-existentials: The interaction between discourse and sentence structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(8), 1025–1040.Google Scholar
Ruffman, T., Slade, L. & Crowe, E. (2002). The relation between children’s and mothers’ mental state language and theory‐of‐mind understanding. Child Development, 73(3), 734–751.Google Scholar
Rühlemann, C. (2019). Corpus linguistics for pragmatics: A guide for research. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rychlý, P. (2008). A lexicographer-friendly association score. In Sojka, P. & Horák, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of recent advances in Slavonic natural language processing (RASLAN, pp. 6–9). Brno: Tribun EU.Google Scholar
Sanders, T., Sanders, J. & Sweetser, E. (2009). Causality, cognition and communication: A mental space analysis of subjectivity in causal connectives. In Sanders, T. & Sweetser, E. (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp. 21–60). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter .Google Scholar
Saxe, R. (2006). Uniquely human social cognition. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 16, 235–239.Google Scholar
Schaafsma, S. M., Pfaff, D. W., Spunt, R. P. & Adolphs, R. (2015). Deconstructing and reconstructing theory of mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(2), 65–72.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2006) Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted. In Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction (pp. 70–96). Oxford/New York: Berg.Google Scholar
Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Reddy, V., Costall, A., Bente, G., Schlicht, T. & Vogeley, K. (2013). Toward a second-person neuroscience 1. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 393–414.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2012). Generalizing the apparently ungeneralizable. In Schmid, H.-J. (Ed.), Basic ingredients of a cognitive-pragmatic approach to the construal of meaning-in-context (Cognitive Pragmatics, pp. 3–22). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Schneider, D., Slaughter, V. P. & Dux, P. E. (2015). What do we know about implicit false-belief tracking? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
Schneider, W. X. (1999). Visual-spatial working memory, attention, and scene representation: A neuro-cognitive theory. Psychological Research, 62(2–3), 220–236.Google Scholar
Schwenter, S. A., & Waltereit, R. (2010). Presupposition accommodation and language change. In Davidse, K. & Vandelanotte, L. (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 75–102). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (2010). Making the social world: The structure of human civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shao, J. M. (1996). Xiandai Hanyu yiwenju yanjiu [A study on interrogatives in Modern Mandarin]. Shanghai: Hudong Shifan Daxue Chubanshe [Hudong Normal University Press].Google Scholar
Shen, L. (2003). Hanyu de zhichen yutai fanchou, jian zhongguo yuwen zazhi shebian ‘yufa yanjiu he tansuo’ (12) [The indicative mood of Mandarin: A look at the linguistic journal ‘Research and Explorations in Grammar’ (12)]. Beijing: Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Shie, C-c. (1991). A discourse-functional analysis of Mandarin sentence-final particles. MA thesis. National Chengchi University.Google Scholar
Simmons, J. Q., & Baltax, C. (1975). Language patterns of adolescent autistics. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 5, 333–351. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf01540680Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sirota, K. G. (2004). Positive politeness as discourse process: Politeness practices of high-functioning children with autism and Asperger syndrome. Discourse Studies, 6(2), 229–251.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. & Aksu, A. (1982). Tense, aspect, modality, and more in Turkish evidentials. In Hopper, P. (Ed.), Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics (pp. 185–200). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Smith, C. (1997). The parameter of aspect (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Sodian, B., & Wimmer, H. (1987). Children’s understanding of inference as a source of knowledge. Child Development, 424–433.Google Scholar
Solomon, O. (2008). Language, autism, and childhood: An ethnographic perspective. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 28, 150–169.Google Scholar
Speelman, D., Grondelaers, S. & Geeraerts, D. (2003). Profile-based linguistic uniformity as a generic method for comparing language varieties. Computers and the Humanities, 37 , 317–337.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition (Vol. 142). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Squartini, M. (2012). Evidentiality in interaction: The concessive use of the Italian future between grammar and discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(15), 2116–2128.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives of English. In Rohdenburg, G. & Mondorf, B. (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation (pp. 413–444). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8, 209–243.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (Eds). (2006). Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stein, D., & Wright, S. (Eds). (1995). Subjectivity and subjectivisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sterponi, L. (2004). Construction of rules, accountability and moral identity by high-functioning children with autism. Discourse Studies, 6(2), 207–228.Google Scholar
Sterponi, L., & de Kirby, K. (2016). A multidimensional reappraisal of language in autism: Insights from a discourse analytic study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(2), 394–405.Google Scholar
Stich, S., & Nichols, S. (1997). Cognitive penetrability, rationality and restricted simulation. Mind & Language, 12(3–4), 297–326.Google Scholar
Sun, X. X. (1999). Jindai Hanyu yuqici [Sentence fine particles in pre-modern Chinese]. Beijing: Yuwen Chubanshe [Yuwen Press].Google Scholar
Surian, L., Caldi, S. & Sperber, D. (2007). Attribution of beliefs by 13-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 18(7), 580–586.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure (Vol. 54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tager-Flusberg, H. (1999). A psychological approach to understanding the social and language impairments in autism. International Review of Psychiatry, 11(4), 325–334.Google Scholar
Tager-Flusberg, H. (2000). Language and understanding minds: Connections in autism. In Baron-Cohen, S., Tager-Flusberg, H. & Cohen, D. J. (Eds.), Understanding other minds: Perspectives from developmental cognitive neuroscience (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tager-Flusberg, H., Calkins, S., Nolin, T., Bamberger, T., Anderson, M. & Chandwick-Dias, A. (1990). A longitudinal study of language acquisition in autistic and Down syndrome children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 20, 1–21.Google Scholar
Tager-Flusberg, H., Paul, P. & Lord, C. (2005). Language and communication in autism. In Volkmar, F. R., Klin, A., Paul, R. & Cohen, D. J. (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders (3rd ed., pp. 335–364). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A., & Baayen, R. H. (2012). Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change, 24(2), 135–178.Google Scholar
Tantucci, V. (2013). Interpersonal evidentiality: The Mandarin V-过 guo construction and other evidential systems beyond the ‘source of information’. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 210–230.Google Scholar
Tantucci, V. (2014). Immediate and extended intersubjectivity: Synchronic and diachronic interplay among evidentiality, factuality and other domains. PhD. Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Tantucci, V. (2015a). Epistemic inclination and factualization: A synchronic and diachronic study on the semantic gradience of factuality. Language and Cognition, 7(3), 371–414.Google Scholar
Tantucci, V. (2015b). Traversativity and grammaticalization: The aktionsart of 过 guo as a lexical source of evidentiality. Chinese Language and Discourse, 6(1), 57–100.Google Scholar
Tantucci, V. (2016a). Textual factualization: The phenomenology of assertive reformulation and presupposition during a speech event. Journal of Pragmatics, 101, 155–171.Google Scholar
Tantucci, V. (2016b). Towards a typology of constative speech acts: Actions beyond evidentiality, epistemic modality and factuality. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(2).Google Scholar
Tantucci, V. (2016c). Immediate and extended intersubjectification in language change: Beyond the opposition between ‘theory-theory’ and ‘simulation-theory’. In O’Nuallain, S. (Ed.), Dualism, platonism and voluntarism: Explorations at the quantum, microscopic, mesoscopic and symbolic neural levels. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Tantucci, V. (2016d). The factualization of ‘I suppose’ in American English: A corpus-based study of the subjectification of epistemic predicates toward factuality. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1773.Google Scholar
Tantucci, V. (2017a). From immediate to extended intersubjectification: A gradient approach to intersubjective awareness and semasiological change. Language and Cognition, 9(1), 88–120.Google Scholar
Tantucci, V. (2017b). An evolutionary approach to semasiological change: Overt influence attempts through the development of the Mandarin 吧-ba particle. Journal of Pragmatics, 120, 35–53.Google Scholar
Tantucci, V. (2020). From co-actionality to extended intersubjectivity: Drawing on language change and ontogenetic development. Applied Linguistics, 41(2), 185–214.Google Scholar
Tantucci, V., Culpeper, J. & Di Cristofaro, M. (2018). Dynamic resonance and social reciprocity in language change: The case of Good morrow. Language Sciences, 68, 6–21.Google Scholar
Tantucci, V., & Di Cristofaro, M. (2019). Entrenchment inhibition: Constructional change and repetitive behaviour can be in competition with large-scale ‘recompositional’ creativity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2019-0017.Google Scholar
Tantucci, V., & Di Cristofaro, M. (2020). Pre-emptive interaction in language change and ontogeny: the case of [there is no NP], Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (published online ahead of print 2020), 000010151520200007. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2020-0007.Google Scholar
Tantucci, V., & Wang, A. (2018). Illocutional concurrences: The case of evaluative speech acts and face-work in spoken Mandarin and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 138, 60–76.Google Scholar
Tantucci, V., & Wang, A. (2020a). Diachronic change of rapport orientation and sentence-periphery in Mandarin. Discourse Studies, 22(2), 146–173.Google Scholar
Tantucci, V., & Wang, A. (2020b). From co-actions to intersubjectivity throughout Chinese ontogeny: A usage-based analysis of knowledge ascription and expected agreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 167, 98–115.Google Scholar
Tardif, T., & Wellman, H. M. (2000). Acquisition of mental state language in Mandarin-and Cantonese-speaking children. Developmental Psychology, 36(1), 25.Google Scholar
Tatevosov, S. (2001). From resultatives to evidentials: Multiple uses of the perfect in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 443–464.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2012). The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2015). Conventionalization: A new agenda for im/politeness research. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 11–18.Google Scholar
Tobin, J. J., Wu, D. Y. & Davidson, D. H. (1989). Preschool in three cultures: Japan, China, and the United States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1998). Reference: Intending that others jointly attend. Pragmatics & Cognition, 6(1–2), 229–243.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2006). Usage-based linguistics. In Geeraerts, D. (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 439–458). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2014). A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2020). The moral psychology of obligation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Gonzalez-Cabrera, I. (2017). The role of ontogeny in the evolution of human cooperation. Human Nature, 28(3), 274–288.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Vaish, A. (2013). Origins of human cooperation and morality. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 231–255.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 31–55.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Stein, D. & Wright, S. (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives (pp. 31–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2003). From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Hickey, R. (Ed.), Motives for language change (pp. 124–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2010). Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In Davidse, K. & Vandelanotte, L. (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 29–70). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2012). Intersubjectification and clause periphery. English Text Construction, 5(1), 7–28.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2016). On the rise of types of clause-final pragmatic markers in English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 17(1), 26–54.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2019). Whither historical pragmatics? A cognitively-oriented perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 25–30.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trillo, J. R. (1997). Your attention, please: Pragmatic mechanisms to obtain the addressee’s attention in English and Spanish conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(2), 205–221.Google Scholar
Trillo, J. R. (Ed.). (2008). Pragmatics and corpus linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tummers, J., Heylen, K. & Geeraerts, D. (2005). Usage-based approaches in cognitive linguistics: A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(2), 225–261.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, J., & Nuyts, J. (Eds.). (2012). Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification. Brussels: Royal Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Van der Wal, J. (2013). (Inter) subjectification in Makhuwa: From demonstrative to pragmatic particle. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 14(1), 1–44.Google Scholar
Van Olmen, D. (2010). Typology meets usage: The case of the prohibitive infinitive in Dutch. Folia Linguistica, 44(2), 471–507.Google Scholar
Van Olmen, D. (2019). A diachronic corpus study of prenominal zo’n ‘so a’in Dutch: Pathways and (inter) subjectification. Functions of Language, 26(2), 216–247.Google Scholar
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E. T. & Rosch, E. (1992). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience (new edition). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2007). Construal and perspectivization. In Geeraerts, D. and Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 48–81). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Xiao, R., & McEnery, T. (2004). Aspect in mandarin chinese: A corpus-based study. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Xie, X. H. (2010). Shitai zhuci ‘guo’ de laiyuan ji fazhan [Origins and development of the tense auxiliary guo]. Zhaotong Shifan Gaodeng zhuanke xuexiao xuebao [Journal of Zhaotong Teachers College], 32(2), 10–32.Google Scholar
Walter, H., Adenzato, M., Ciaramidaro, A., Enrici, I., Pia, L. & Bara, B. (2004). Understanding intentions in social interaction: The role of the anteriorparacingulate cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1854–1863.Google Scholar
Waltereit, R. (2001). Modal particles and their functional equivalents: A speech-act-theoretic approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(9), 1391–1417.Google Scholar
Waltereit, R. (2002). Imperatives, interruption in conversion, and the rise of discourse markers: A study of Italian guarda. Linguistics, 40(5; ISSU 381), 987–1010.Google Scholar
Wang, L. (1984). 王力文集 Wangli wenji [Collected works of Wang li]. Jinan: Shangdong Jiaoyu Chubanshe [Shangdong Education Press].Google Scholar
Wang, W. F. (2009). Xiandai Hanyu yuqici ‘ba’ yanjiu zongshu [A review of the research about The Mandarin sentence fine and particle ‘ba’]. Yancheng Shifxueyan Xuebao [Journal of the Normal University of Yancheng], 2, 87–89.Google Scholar
Weidong, Z., Baobao, C., Huiming, D. & Huarui, Z. (2006). Recent developments in Chinese corpus research. In Proceedings of The 13th NIJL (The National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics) International Symposium, Language Corpora: Their Compilation and Application. Tokyo.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, M. R., & Ball, L. J. (2012). Why studies of autism spectrum disorders have failed to resolve the theory theory versus simulation theory debate. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3(2), 263–291.Google Scholar
Wimpory, D. C., Hobson, R. P., Williams, J. M. G. & Nash, S. (2000). Are infants with autism socially engaged? A study of recent retrospective parental reports. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30(6), 525–536.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M. (2012). Theory of mind: Better methods, clearer findings, more development. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(3), 313–330.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M. (2014). Making minds: How theory of mind develops. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M. (2017). The development of theory of mind: Historical reflections. Child Development Perspectives, 11(3), 207–214.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M., Cross, D. & Watson, J. (2001). A meta-analysis of theory of mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72, 655–684. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00304.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M., Fang, F., Liu, D., Zhu, L. & Liu, G. (2006). Scaling of theory-of-mind understandings in Chinese children. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1075–1081.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M., Harris, P. L., Banerjee, M. & Sinclair, A. (1995). Early understanding of emotion: Evidence from natural language. Cognition & Emotion, 9(2–3), 117–149.Google Scholar
Wetherby, A. M. (1986). Ontogeny of communicative functions in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 16(3), 295–316.Google Scholar
Whitcombe, E., & Robinson, E. (2000). Children’s decisions about what to believe and their ability to report the source of their belief. Cognitive Development, 15, 329–346.Google Scholar
Wiklund, M. (2016). Interactional challenges in conversations with autistic preadolescents: The role of prosody and non-verbal communication in other-initiated repairs. Journal of Pragmatics, 94, 76–97.Google Scholar
Wilkes-Gibbs, D., & Clark, H. H. (1992). Coordinating beliefs in conversation. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(2), 183–194.Google Scholar
Williams, G. (2018). Sincerity in Medieval English language and literature. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In Horn, L. & Ward, G. (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13(1), 103–128.Google Scholar
Windfuhr, G. (1982). The verbal category of inference in Persian. Acta Iranica, 22, 263–287.Google Scholar
Wodka, E. L., Mathy, P., & Kalb, L. (2013). Predictors of phrase and fluent speech in children with autism and severe language delay. Pediatrics, 131(4), e1128–e1134.Google Scholar
Wu, H. C. (2003). A case study on the Grammaticalization of Guo in Mandarin Chinese – Polysemy of the motion verb with respect to semantic changes. Language and Linguistics, 4(4), 857–885.Google Scholar
Wu, J. S. (2008). Terminability, wholeness and semantics of experiential guo. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 17, 1–32.Google Scholar
Yeh, M. (1996). Experiential -guo in Mandarin. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 5, 183–215.Google Scholar
Yu, M.-C. (2003). On the universality of face: Evidence from Chinese compliment response behavior. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10–11), 1679–1710.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y. & MacWhinney, B. (2010). Competing cues: A corpus-based study of the English tense-aspect in second language acquisition. In Franich, K., Iserman, K. M. & Keil, L. L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 503–514). Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Zheng, J. M. & Zhang, X. L. (2009). Zeguai shi huayu biaoji ‘ni kan ni’ [The discourse marker of blame ‘ni kan ni’]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [Chinese Teaching in the World], 23(2), 202–209.Google Scholar
Zhu, J., & Gavarró, A. (2019). Testing language acquisition models: Null and overt topics in Mandarin. Journal of Child Language, 46(4), 707–732.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, D. (1997). Retention in ontogenetic and diachronic grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 207–242.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J. (2008). From proto-mimesis to language: Evidence from primatology and social neuroscience. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 102(1), 137–151.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., & Blomberg, J. (2016). Embodied intersubjectivity, sedimentation and non-actual motion expressions. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 39(2), 185–208.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., Madsen, E. A., Lenninger, S., Persson, T., Sayehli, S., Sonesson, G. & van de Weijer, J. (2013). Understanding communicative intentions and semiotic vehicles by children and chimpanzees. Cognitive Development, 28(3), 312–329.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., Steffensen, S., Harvey, M. & Kimmel, M. (2018). Introduction. Cognitive Semiotics, 11(1), 20180006. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2018-0006Google Scholar