Aijmer, Karin 2002 English Discourse Particles. Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aijmer, Karin 2011 ‘Well I’m not sure I think … The use of well by non-native speakers’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16/2: 231–254.Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin 2013 Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin, Foolen, Ad and Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie 2006 ‘Pragmatic markers in translation: a methodological proposal’. In Fischer, Kerstin (ed.) Approaches to Discourse Particles. Oxford/Amsterdam: Elsevier, 101–114.Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin and Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie 2006 ‘Introduction’. In Aijmer, Karin and Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie (eds.) Pragmatic Markers in Contrast. Studies in Pragmatics 2. Oxford: Elsevier, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, Gisle 1997 ‘They gave us these yeah, and they like wanna see like how we talk and all that. The use of like and other pragmatic markers in London teenage speech’. In Kotsinas, Ulla-Brit, Stenström, Anna-Brita and Karlsson, A.-M. (eds.) 82–95.Google Scholar

Andersen, Gisle 1998 ‘The pragmatic marker like from a relevance-theoretic perspective’. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Ziv, Yael (eds.) 147–170.Google Scholar

Andersen, Gisle 2000 ‘The role of the pragmatic marker like in utterance interpretation’. In Andersen, Gisle and Fretheim, Thorstein (eds.) 17–38.Google Scholar

Andersen, Gisle 2001 Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach to the Language of Adolescents. Pragmatics and Beyond Series 84. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Andersen, Gisle 2014 ‘Pragmatic borrowing’. Journal of Pragmatics 67: 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, Gisle and Fretheim, Thorstein (eds.) 2000 Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnes, Betsy 1995 ‘Discourse particles in French conversation: (eh) ben, bon, and enfin’. The French Review 68/5: 813–821.Google Scholar

Bazzanella, Carla 1990 ‘Phatic connectives as interactional cues in contemporary spoken Italian’. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 629–647.Google Scholar

Beeching, Kate 2002 Gender, Politeness and Pragmatic Particles in French. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 64. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Beeching, Kate. 2005 ‘Politeness-induced semantic change: The case of quand même’. Language Variation and Change 17: 155–180.Google Scholar

Beeching, Kate 2007a ‘A politeness-theoretic approach to pragmatico-semantic change’. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8/1: 69–108.Google Scholar

Beeching, Kate 2007b ‘Social identity, salience and language change: the case of post-rhemtaic quoi’. In Ayres-Bennett, Wendy and Jones, Mari (eds.) The French Language and Questions of Identity. London: Legenda, 140–149.Google Scholar

Beeching, Kate 2007c ‘La co-variation des marqueurs discursifs bon, c’est-à-dire, enfin, hein, quand même, quoi post-rhématique et si vous voulez: une question d’identité?’ Langue Française 154/2: 78–93.Google Scholar

Beeching, Kate 2009a ‘Sociolinguistic factors and the pragmaticalization of bon in contemporary spoken French’. In Beeching, Kate, Armstrong, Nigel and Gadet, Françoise (eds.) 215–229.Google Scholar

Beeching, Kate 2009b ‘Procatalepsis and the etymology of hedging/boosting particles’. In Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard and Visconti, Jacqueline (eds.) Current Trends in Diachronic Semantics and Pragmatics. Studies in Pragmatics 7. Bingley: Emerald, 81–106.Google Scholar

Beeching, Kate 2010 ‘Semantic change: Evidence from false friends’. Languages in Contrast 10/2: 139–165.Google Scholar

Beeching, Kate 2013 ‘A parallel corpus approach to investigating semantic change’. In Aijmer, Karin and Altenberg, Bengt (eds.) Advances in Corpus-based Contrastive Linguistics. Studies in honour of Stig Johansson. Studies in Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 103–126.Google Scholar

Beeching, Kate forthc./2015 ‘Variability in native and non-native use of pragmatic markers: the example of well in role-play data’. In Beeching, Kate and Woodfield, Helen (eds.) Researching Sociopragmatic Variability. Perspectives from Variational, Interlanguage and Contrastive Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Beeching, Kate (forthc.) ‘Alors/donc/then at the right periphery: seeking confirmation of an inference’. Journal of Historical Pragmatics.Google Scholar

Beeching, Kate, Armstrong, Nigel and Gadet, Françoise (eds.) 2009 Sociolinguistic Variation in Contemporary French. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Beeching, Kate and Detges, Ulrich (eds.) 2014 Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Perphery. Cross-linguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change. Studies in Pragmatics 12. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Beeching, Kate and Wang, Yu-Fang 2014 ‘Motivations for meaning shift at the left and right periphery: well, bon and hao’. In Beeching, Kate and Detges, Ulrich (eds.) 47–71.Google Scholar

Bennett, Joe 2012 ‘“And what comes out may be a kind of screeching”: The stylization of chavspeak in contemporary Britain’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 16/1: 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bernstein, Basil 1971 Class, Codes and Control. Vol. 1. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward 1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Blakemore, Diane 1987 ‘Review of Carlson 1984’. Lingua 73: 232–241.Google Scholar

Blyth, Carl Jr., Recktenwald, Sigrid and Wang, Jenny 1990 ‘“I’m like, ‘Say What ?’”; A new quotative in American oral narrative’. American Speech 65: 215–227.Google Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight 1989 Intonation and its Uses: Melody and Grammar in Discourse. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Bousfield, Derek and Locher, Miriam (eds.) 2008 Impoliteness in Language. Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Brems, Lisselotte and Davidse, Kristin 2010 ‘The reanalysis and grammaticalization of nominal type noun constructions with kind of/sort of: Chronology and paths of change’. English Studies 91: 180–202.Google Scholar

Brezina, Vaclav and Meyerhoff, Miriam 2014 ‘Significant or random? A critical review of sociolinguistic generalisations based on large corpora’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 19/1: 1–28.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel 1996 Pragmatic Markers in English. Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel 1998 ‘“The flowers are lovely; only they have no scent”. The evolution of a pragmatic marker in English’. In Borgmeister, Raimund, Grabes, Herbert and Jucker, Andreas H. (eds.) Anglistentag, Giessen, Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 9–33.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel 2007 ‘The development of I mean: Implications for the study of historical pragmatics’. In Fitzmaurice, Susan and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.) Methods in Historical Pragmatics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 37–80.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel 2008 The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2005 Lexicalisation and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Britain, David (ed.) 2007 Language in the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope 1980 ‘How and why are women more polite: some evidence from a Mayan community’. Reprinted in Coates, Jennifer (ed.) 1998 Language and Gender. Oxford: Blackwell, 81–99.Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen [1978] 1987 Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Buchstaller, Isabelle 2006a ‘Social stereotypes, personality traits and regional perception displaced: Attitudes towards the ‘new’ quotatives in the U.K’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10/3: 362–381.Google Scholar

Buchstaller, Isabelle 2006b ‘Diagnostics of age-graded linguistic behaviour: The case of the quotative system’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10/1: 3–30.Google Scholar

Buchstaller, Isabelle and D’Arcy, Alexandra 2009 ‘Localized globalization: A multi-local, multivariate investigation of quotative be like’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13/1: 291–331.Google Scholar

Buchstaller, Isabelle 2011 ‘Quotations across the generations: A multivariate analysis of speech and thought introducers across 5 decades of Tyneside speech’. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7/1: 59–92.Google Scholar

Buysse, Lieven 2015 ‘“Well it’s not very ideal …”. The pragmatic marker well in learner English’. Intercultural Pragmatics 12/1: 59–89.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan and Scheidman, Joanne 1999 ‘The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English’. Linguistics 37/4: 575–596.Google Scholar

Caffi, Claudia 1999 ‘On mitigation’. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 881–909.Google Scholar

Cameron, Deborah 2001 Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Carlson, Lauri 1984 Well in Dialogue Games: A Discourse Analysis of the Interjection well in Idealized Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Caron-Prague, Josiane and Caron, Jean 1991 ‘Psychopragmatics vs. sociopragmatics. The function of pragmatic markers in thinking-aloud protocols’. In Verschueren, Jef (ed.) Pragmatics at Issue: Selected Papers of the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, August 17–22, 1987. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 29–36.Google Scholar

Carter, Ronald and Simpson, Paul 1989 Language, Discourse and Literature: An Introductory Reader in Discourse Stylistics. London: Unwin.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace 1988 ‘Linking intonation units in spoken English’. In Haiman, John and Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.) Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Typological Studies in Language 18. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–27.Google Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny 1981 ‘Variation in the use of ain’t in an urban British English dialect’. Language in Society 10/2: 365–381.Google Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny 1982 Variation in an English Dialect. A Sociolinguistic Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny 2007 ‘Discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11/2: 155–193.Google Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny, Kerswill, Paul, Fox, Sue and Torgersen, Eivind 2011 ‘Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: The emergence of Multicultural London English’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15/2: 151–196.Google Scholar

Coates, Jennifer 1989 ‘Gossip revisited: Language in all-female groups’. In Coates, Jennifer and Cameron, Deborah (eds.) Women in their Speech Communities. London: Longman, 94–121.Google Scholar

Coates, Jennifer (ed.) 1998 Language and Gender. A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Coates, Jennifer 2013 Women, Men and Everyday Talk. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Coupland, Nikolas 2007 Style. Language and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Croft, William 2000 Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Crystal, David 1988 ‘Another look at well, you know …’ English Today 13: 47–49.Google Scholar

Crystal, David and Davy, Derek 1975 Advanced Conversational English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan 2010 ‘Conventionalised impoliteness formulae’. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3232–3245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan 2011 Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan and Kádár, Dániel (eds.) 2010 Historical (Im)politeness. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan and Kytö, Merja 2000 ‘Data in historical pragmatics. Spoken interaction (re)cast as writing’. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1: 175–199.Google Scholar

Dailey-O’Cain, Jennifer 2000 ‘The sociolinguistic distribution and attitudes toward focuser like and quotative like’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4: 60–80.Google Scholar

D’Arcy, Alexandra 2005 Like: Syntax and Development. PhD dissertation. University of Toronto.Google Scholar

D’Arcy, Alexandra 2006 ‘Lexical replacement and the like(s)’. American Speech 81/4: 339–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

D’Arcy, Alexandra 2007 ‘Like’ and language ideology: Disentangling fact from fiction’. American Speech 82/4: 386–419.Google Scholar

D’Arcy, Alexandra 2012 ‘The diachrony of quotation. Evidence from New Zealand English’. Language Variation and Change 24/3: 343–369.Google Scholar

Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.) 2010 Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Defour, Tine 2008 ‘The speaker’s voice. A diachronic study on the use of “well” and “now” as pragmatic markers’. English Text Construction 1/1: 62–82.Google Scholar

Defour, Tine 2010 ‘The semantic-pragmatic development of well from the viewpoint of (inter)subjectification’. In Davidse, Kristin, Vandelonotte, Lieven and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.) 134–174.Google Scholar

Defour, Tine, D’Hondt, Ulrique, Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie and Willems, Dominique 2012 ‘Degrees of pragmaticalization’. In Lauwers, Peter, Vanderbauwhede, Gudrun and Verleyen, Stijn (eds.) 37–64.Google Scholar

Degand, Liesbeth 2000 ‘Causal connectives or causal prepositions? Discursive constraints’. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 687–707.Google Scholar

Degand, Liesbeth and Fagard, Benjamin 2011 ‘Alors between discourse and grammar. The role of syntactic position’. Functions of Language 18/1: 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Denison, David. Grammaticalisations of sort of, kind of and type in English. http://www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/subjects/lel/staff/david-denison/papers/thefile,100118,en.pdf.Google Scholar

Denison, David 2002 ‘History of the sort of Construction Family’. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Construction Grammar, University of Helsinki, 7 September 2002. Outline draft version available from: http://www.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/medialibrary/llc/files/david-denison/Helsinki_ICCG2.pdf.Google Scholar

Denison, David 2011 ‘The construction of SKT’. Plenary paper presented at Second Vigo-Newcastle-Santiago-Leuven International Workshop on the Structure of the Noun Phrase in English (NP2), Newcastle upon Tyne. Powerpoint presentation available from: http://www.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/medialibrary/llc/files/david-denison/NP2_workshop_plenary.pdf.Google Scholar

Denke, Annika 2009 Native-like Performance. Pragmatic Markers, Repair and Repetition in Native and Non-native English Speech. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar

Detges, Ulrich 2000a ‘Time and truth: The grammaticalization of resultatives and perfects within a theory of subjectification’. Studies in Language 24: 345–377.Google Scholar

Detges, Ulrich 2000b ‘Two types of restructuring in French creoles: a cognitive approach to the genesis of tense markers’. In Neumann-Holzschuh, Ingrid and Schneider, Edgar (eds.) Degrees of Restructuring in Creole Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 135–162.Google Scholar

Dines, E.R. 1980. ‘Variation in discourse – “and stuff like that”’. Language in Society 9: 13–33.Google Scholar

Dittmar, Norbert 2000 ‘Sozialer Umbruch und Sprachwandel am Beispiel der Modalpartikeln halt und eben in der Berliner Kommunikationsgemeinschaft nach der “Wende”’. In Auer, Peter and Hausendork, Heiko (eds.) Kommunikation in gesellschaftlichen Umbruchsituationen. Mikroanalytische Aspekte des sprachlichen und gesellschaftlichen Wandels in den Neuen Bundesländern. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 199–234.Google Scholar

Dostie, Gaétane 2004 Pragmaticalisation et Marqueurs Discursifs. Analyse Sémantique et Traitement Lexicographique. Bruxelles: De Boeck et Larcier, Éditions Ducoulot.Google Scholar

Dubois, Sylvie 1992. ‘Extension particles, etc’. Language Variation and Change 4/2: 179–203.Google Scholar

Eckert, Penelope 2008 ‘Variation and the indexical field’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12: 453–76.Google Scholar

Eckert, Penelope 2012 ‘Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic Variation’. Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 87–100.Google Scholar

Eckert, Penelope 2014 ‘Stylistic Innovation and Indexical Obsolescence’. Talk given at NWAV 43.Google Scholar

Edmondson, Willis 1981 Spoken Discourse: A Model for Analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Eelen, Gino 2001 A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar

Erman, Britt 1986 ‘Some pragmatic expressions in English conversation’. In Tottie, Gunnel and Backlund, Ingegerd (eds.) English in Speech and Writing. A Symposium. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 131–147.Google Scholar

Erman, Britt 1987 Pragmatic Expressions in English: A Study of you know, you see and I mean in Face-to-Face Communication. Stockholm Studies in English 69. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Erman, Britt 1997 “Guy’s just such a dickhead”: The context and function of just in teenage talk’. In Kotsinas, Ulla-Brit, Stenström, Anna-Brita and Karlsson, Anna-Malin (eds.) 96–110.Google Scholar

Erman, Britt 2001 ‘Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk’. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1337–1359.Google Scholar

Erman, Britt and Kotsinas, Ulla-Brit 1993 ‘Pragmaticalization: the case of ba’ and you know’. Studier i modern språkvetenskap 10: 76–93.Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas and Wilkins, David 2000 ‘In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception’. Language 76: 546–592.Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman 2003 Analysing Discourse. Textual Analysis for Social Research. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Fernandez, M.M. Jocelyne 1994 Les particules énonciatives. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar

Ferrara, Kathleen and Bell, Barbara 1995 ‘Sociolinguistic variation and discourse function of constructed dialogue introducers: The case of be+like’. American Speech 70: 265–289.Google Scholar

Fetzer, Anita 2010 ‘Hedges in Context: Form and Function of sort of and kind of’. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Mihatsch, Wiltrud and Schneider, Stefan (eds.) 49–72.Google Scholar

Finell, Anne 1989 ‘Well now and then’. (squib) Journal of Pragmatics 13: 656–6.Google Scholar

Fischer, Kerstin (ed.) 2006 Approaches to Discourse Particles. Studies in Pragmatics 1. Oxford: Elsevier.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

Fleischmann, Suzanne, and Yaguello, Marina 2004 ‘Discourse markers across languages? Evidence from English and French’. In Moder, Carol Lynn and Aida, Martinovic-Zik (eds.) Discourse Across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 129–147.Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1996 ‘Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational and pragmatic resources for the management of turns’. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.) Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 134–184.Google Scholar

Fox Tree, Jean E. 2006 ‘Placing like in telling stories’. Discourse Studies 8/6: 723–743.Google Scholar

Fox Tree, Jean E. and Schrock, Josef C. 2002 ‘Basic meanings of you know and I mean’. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 727–747.Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce 1988 ‘Types of English discourse markers’. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38: 19–33.Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce 1996 ‘Pragmatic markers’. Pragmatics 6/2: 167–190.Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce 1999 ‘What are discourse markers?’ Journal of Pragmatics 14: 219–236.Google Scholar

Fuller, Janet M. 2003a ‘Use of the discourse marker like in interviews’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7/3: 365–377.Google Scholar

Fuller, Janet M. 2003b ‘Discourse marker use across speech contexts: a comparison of native and non-native performance’. Multilingua 22: 185–208.Google Scholar

Fuller, Janet M. 2003c ‘The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use’. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 23–45.Google Scholar

Fung, Loretta and Carter, Ronald 2007 ‘Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings’. Applied Linguistics 28/3: 410–439.Google Scholar

Gabrielatos, Costas, Torgersen, Eivind, Hoffmann, Sebastian and Fox, Sue 2010 ‘A corpus-based sociolinguistic study of indefinite article forms in London English’. Journal of English Linguistics 38/4: 297–334.Google Scholar

Geeraerts, Dirk 1997 Diachronic Prototype Semantics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving 1967 Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York: Anchor/Doubleday.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Julia Anna 1980 Discourse Particles. An Analysis of the Role of y’know, I Mean, well and Actually in Conversation. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Cambridge University.Google Scholar

Grant, Lynn E. 2011 ‘The frequency and functions of just in British academic spoken English’. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10/3: 183–197.Google Scholar

Grice, H. Paul 1975 ‘Logic and conversation’. In Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3 New York: Academic Press, 41–58.Google Scholar

Gülich, Elizabeth 1970 Makrosyntax der Glierungssignale im gesprochenen Französisch. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar

Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard 1998a The Function of Discourse Particles. A Study with Special Reference to Standard Spoken French. Amsterdam/Phidelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard 1998b ‘The semantic status of discourse markers’. Lingua 104: 235–260.Google Scholar

Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard 2005 ‘A comparative study of the semantics and pragmatics of enfin and finalement, in synchrony and diachrony’. Journal of French Language Studies 15: 153–171.Google Scholar

Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard 2008 Particles at the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface: Synchronic and Diachronic Issues. A Study with Special Reference to the French Phasal Adverbs. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard and Rossari, Corinne 2005 ‘The evolution of pragmatic markers. Introduction’. Special issue Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6/2: 177–187.Google Scholar

Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard and Waltereit, Richard 2006 ‘GCI theory and language change’. Acta Linguistica Hafniensa 38: 235–268.Google Scholar

He, Agnes Weiyun and Lindsay, Brian 1998 ‘“You know” as an information status enhancing device. Arguments from grammar and interaction’. Functions of Language 5: 133–153.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd 2013 ‘On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalizaion or something else?’ Linguistics 51/6: 1205–1247.Google Scholar

Hickey, Leo and Stewart, Miranda (eds.) 2005 Politeness in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Hines, Carole P. 1978 ‘Well …’ In Paradis, Michael (ed.) The Fourth LACUS Forum. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press, 308–318.Google Scholar

Hitchcock, Tim and Shoemaker, Robert 2007 The value of the proceedings as a historical source. Old Bailey Proceedings online.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Sebastian, Evert, Stefan, Smith, Nicholas, Lee, David and Prytz, Ylva Berglound 2008 Corpus Linguistics with BNCweb – A Practical Guide (English Corpus Linguistics). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet 1986 ‘Functions of you know in women’s and men’s speech’. Language in Society 15/1: 1–22.Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet 1989 ‘Sort of in New Zealand women’s and men’s speech’. Studia Linguistica 42/2: 85–121.Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet 1995 Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet 1997 ‘Story-telling in New Zealand’. In Wodak, Ruth (ed.) Gender and Discourse. London: Sage, 263–293.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1991 ‘On some principles of grammaticization’. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Heine, B. (eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization (2 vols). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 17–35.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs [1993] 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

House, Juliane 2009 ‘Subjectivity in English as lingua franca discourse: The case of you know’. Intercultural Pragmatics 6/2: 171–193.Google Scholar

Huber, Magnus. 2007. ‘The Old Bailey Proceedings, 1674–1834. Evaluating and annotating a corpus of 18th- and 19th-century spoken English’. In Meurman-Solin, Anneli and Nurmi, Arja (eds.) Annotating Variation and Change. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 1. University of Helsinki: Department of English. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/01/huber/. Accessed 18/09/14.Google Scholar

Huspek, M. 1989 Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hutchby, Ian 2002 ‘Resisting the incitement to talk in child counselling: Aspects of the utterance “I don’t know”’. Discourse Studies 4/2: 147–168.Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken 1998a Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken 1998b ‘Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge’. Text 18/3: 349–382.Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken 2000 ‘Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility’. Language Awareness 9: 179–197.Google Scholar

Jackson, Clare and Jones, Danielle 2013 ‘Well they had a couple of bats to be truthful: Well-prefaced, self-initiated repairs in managing relevant accuracy in interaction’. Journal of Pragmatics 47: 28–40.Google Scholar

James, Allan R. 1983 ‘Compromisers in English. A cross-disciplinary approach to their interpersonal significance’. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 191–206.Google Scholar

James, Deborah 1978 ‘The use of oh, ah, say and well in relation to a number of grammatical phenomena’. Papers in Linguistics 11: 517–535.Google Scholar

Johnstone, Barbara 2010 ‘Locating Language in Identity’. In Llamas, Carmen and Watt, Dominic (eds.) Language and Identities. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 29–36.Google Scholar

Johnstone, Barbara, Andrus, Jennifer and Danielson, Andrew E. 2006 ‘Mobility, indexicality and the enregisterment of “Pittsburghese”’. Journal of English Linguistics 34/2: 77–104.Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. 1993. ‘The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account’. Journal of Pragmatics 19/5: 435–452.Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. 1997 ‘The discourse marker well in the history of English’. English Literature and Linguistics 1: 91–110.Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. and Smith, Sara 1998 ‘And people just you know like “wow”: Discourse markers as negotiating strategies’. In Jucker, Andreas and Ziv, Yael (eds.) 171–202.Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas, H. and Ziv, Yael (eds.) 1998 Discourse Markers: Description and Theory. Amsterdam/Phildelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, Gunther 2007 ‘Position, prosody, and scope: The case of English comment clauses’. Vienna English Working papers (VIEWS) 16/1: 3–38.Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, Gunther 2008 ‘Prosody and function of English comment clauses’. Folia Linguistica 42/1–2:83–134.Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, Gunther 2010 ‘Pragmatic functions of parenthetical I think’. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Mihjatsch, Wiltrud and Schneider, Stefan (eds.) 237–266.Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania 2011 ‘On thetical grammar’. Studies in Language. 35/4: 852–897.Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, Gunther, Mihatsch, Wiltrud and Schneider, Stefan 2010a ‘Introduction’. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Mihatsch, Wiltrud and Schneider, Stefan (eds.) 1–13.Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, Gunther, Mihatsch, Wiltrud and Schneider, Stefan (eds.) 2010b New Approaches to Hedging. Studies in Pragmatics 9. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar

Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003 Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on I think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kärkkäinen, Elise 2010 ‘Positions and scope of epistemic phrases in planned and unplanned American English’. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Mihatsch, Wiltrud and Schneider, Stefan (eds.) 203–236.Google Scholar

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine 1992 Les Interactions Verbales Tome II. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine 1997 ‘A multi-level approach in the study of talk-in-interaction’. Pragmatics 7/1: 1–20.Google Scholar

Kerswill, Paul, Cheshire, Jenny, Fox, Sue and Torgerson, Eivind 2007 Linguistic Innovators: The English of Adolescents in London: Full Research Report. ESRC End of Award Report, RES-000–23-0680. Swindon: ESRC.Google Scholar

Klerk, de Vivian 2005 ‘Procedural meanings of well in a corpus of Xhosa English’. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1183–1205.Google Scholar

Kotsinas, Ulla-Brit, Stenström, Anna-Brita and Karlsson, Anna-Malin (eds.) 1997 Ungdommssprǻk i Norden Föredrag frǻn ett forskarsymposium. Meddelanden frǻn Institutionen för nordiska sprǻk vid Stockholms universitet. MINS 43.Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltán, and Radden, Günter 1998 ‘Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view’. Cognitive Linguistics 9/1: 37–77.Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja and Walker, Terry 2003 ‘The linguistic study of Early Modern English speech-related texts. How “bad” can “bad” data be?’ Journal of English Linguistics 31: 221–248.Google Scholar

Labov, William 1963 ‘The social motivation of a sound change’. Word 19: 273–309.Google Scholar

Labov, William 1966 The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

Labov, William 1972 Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Labov, William 1990 ‘The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change’. Language Variation and Change 2: 205–54.Google Scholar

Labov, William 1994 Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol.1: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Labov, William 2001 Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George 1975 ‘Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts’. In Hockney, D.J., Harber, W., and Freed, B. (eds.) Contemporary Research in Philosophical Logic and Linguistic Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel, 221–271.Google Scholar

Lakoff, Robin 1973 ‘Questionable answers and answerable questions’. In Kachru, B.B., Lees, R.B., Malkiel, Y. and Saporta, S. (eds.) Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Rene Kahane. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 453–67.Google Scholar

Lakoff, Robin 1975 Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Lambert, Wallace 1967 ‘A social psychology of bilingualism’. The Journal of Social Issues 23/2: 91–109.Google Scholar

Lambert, Wallace E. Hodgson, R.C. Gardner and Fillenbaum, S. 1960 ‘Evaluational reactions to spoken language’. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60: 44–51.Google Scholar

Lamiroy, Beatrice 1994 ‘Pragmatic connectives and L2 acquisition: The case of French and Dutch’. Pragmatics 4: 183–201.Google Scholar

Lauwers, Peter, Vanderbauwhede, Gudrun and Verleyen, Stijn (eds.) 2012 Pragmatic Markers and Pragmaticalization. Benjamins Current Topics 44. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Leeman, D. 2004 ‘L’emploi de juste comme adverbe d’énonciation’. Langue Française, 142: 17–30.Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian 1985 ‘Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change’. Lingua e Stile 20: 303–318.Google Scholar

Lenk, Uta 1998 Marking Discourse Coherence: Functions of Discourse Markers in Spoken English. Gunter Narr.Google Scholar

Le Page, R.B. and Tabouret-Keller, Andrée 1985 Acts of Identity: Creole-based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Levey, Stephen 2003 ‘He’s like “Do it now!” and I’m like “No!”’. English Today 19/1: 24–32.Google Scholar

Levey, Stephen 2006 ‘The sociolinguistic distribution of discourse marker like in preadolescent speech’. Multilingua 25/4: 413–441.Google Scholar

Levey, Stephen 2013 ‘General extenders and grammaticalization: Insights from London preadolescents’. Applied Linguistics 33/3: 257–281.Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen 1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Liao, Silvie 2009 ‘Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the US’. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1313–1328.Google Scholar

Lin, Chia-Yen 2010 ‘“… that’s actually sort of you know trying to get consultants in …”: Functions and multifunctionality of modifiers in academic lectures’. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 1173–1183.Google Scholar

Lindemann, Stephanie and Mauranen, Anna 2001 ‘“It’s just real messy”: the occurrence and function of just in a corpus of academic speech’. English for Specific Purposes 20: 459–475.Google Scholar

Macaulay, Ronald 2001 ‘You’re like “why not?”: The quotative expressions of Glasgow adolescents’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5/1: 3–21.Google Scholar

Macaulay, Ronald 2002 ‘You know, it depends’. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 749–767.Google Scholar

Macaulay, Ronald 2013 ‘Discourse Variation’. In Chambers, J.K. and Schilling-Estes, Natalie The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. 2^nd Edition. Oxford: Wiley: Blackwell, 220–236.Google Scholar

Margerie, Hélène 2010 ‘On the rise of (inter)subjective meaning in the grammaticalization of kind of/kinda’. In Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.) 315–348.Google Scholar

Mayall, Kelly 2005 ‘It’s actually like quite posh’. The changing attitudes towards the pragmatic marker like. Unpublished Linguistics Project. UWE, Bristol.Google Scholar

Meehan, Teresa 1991 ‘It’s like, “What’s happening in the evolution of like?”: A Theory of Grammaticalization’. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 37–51.Google Scholar

Meillet, Antoine 1958 [1912]. ‘L’évolution des formes grammaticales’. In Meillet, A. 1912. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion, 130–148. (Repr. From Scientia (Rivista di scienza) XII, 1912).Google Scholar

Mendoza-Denton, Norma 2002 ‘Language and Identity’. In Chambers, J.F.K, Trudgill, Peter and Schilling-Estes, Nathalie (eds.) The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell, 475–499.Google Scholar

Meyerhoff, Miriam 1986 The Kind of Women Who Put ‘-ish’ Behind Everything and ‘Sort Of’ in Front of It – a Study of Sex Differences in New Zealand English. Unpublished MA thesis. Wellington: Victoria University.Google Scholar

Miller, D. Gary 2012 External Influences on English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Miller, Jim and Weinert, Regina 1995 ‘The function of LIKE in dialogue’. Journal of Pragmatics 23: 365–393.Google Scholar

Mills, Sara 2003 Gender and Politeness. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Miskovic-Lukovic, Mirjana 2009 ‘Is there a chance that I might kinda sort of take you to dinner?: The role of the pragmatic particles kind of and sort of in utterance interpretation’. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 602–625.Google Scholar

Mulder, Jean and Thompson, Sandra A. 2008 ‘The grammaticization of ‘but’ as a final particle in English conversation’. In Laury, Ritva (ed.) Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 179–204.Google Scholar

Müller, Simone 2005 Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Murray, Dinah 1979 ‘Well’. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 727–732.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu 1991 ‘But, only, just: Focusing adverbial change in modern English 1500–1900’. Mémoires de la Société néophilologique de Helsinki 13. Helsinki: Société Neophilologique.Google Scholar

Nikula, Tarja 1996 Pragmatic Force Modifiers: A Study in Interlanguage Pragmatics. University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland.Google Scholar

Norrick, Neal R. 2001 Discourse markers in oral narrative. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 849–878.Google Scholar

Ochs, Eleanor 1992 ‘Indexing gender’. In Duranti, Alessandro and Goodwin, Charles (eds.) Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 335–358.Google Scholar

O’Keeffe, Anne, McCarthy, Michael and Carter, Ronald 2007 From Corpus to Classroom: Language Use and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Östman, Jan-Ola 1981 You know: A Discourse-Functional Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Owen, Marion 1981 ‘Conversational units and the use of “well … .”’. In Werth, Paul (ed.) Conversation and Discourse. London: Croom Helm, 19–116.Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1931–35. Collected Papers, Vols. 1–6. In Hartshorne, Charles and Weiss, Paul (eds.). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1958. Collected papers, Vols. 7–8. In Burkes, Arthur W. (ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Peters, Charles 2012 ‘You know?’. Washington Monthly 44/9–10: 17.Google Scholar

Pichler, Heike 2010 ‘Methods in discourse variation analysis: Reflections on the way forward’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14/5: 581–608.Google Scholar

Pichler, Heike 2013 The Structure of Discourse-Pragmatic Variation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Pichler, Heike and Levey, Stephen 2011 ‘In search of grammaticalization in synchronic dialect data: General extenders in north-east England’. English Language and Linguistics 15/3: 441–471.Google Scholar

Pomerantz, Anita 1984 ‘Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferrred turn shapes’. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and Heritage, John (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–101.Google Scholar

Poplack, Shana (ed.) 1998 ‘Perspectives on Linguistic Variation: The View from 70 Laurier’. Cahiers linguistiques d’Ottawa 26 (Special issue).Google Scholar

Poplack, Shana 2011 ‘A variationist perspective on grammaticalization’. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 209–224.Google Scholar

Poplack, Shana & Dion, Nathalie 2009 ‘Prescription vs praxis: The evolution of future temporal reference in French’. Language 85/3: 557–587.Google Scholar

Prince, Ellen, Bosk, Charles and Frader, Joel 1982 ‘On hedging in physician-physician discourse’. In Di Pietro, Robert J. (ed.) Linguistics and the Professions. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex, 83–97.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan 1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Redeker, Gisela 1990 ‘Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure’. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 367–381.Google Scholar

Redeker, Gisela 1991 ‘Review of Schiffrin 1987’. Linguistics 29: 1139–1172.Google Scholar

Redeker, Gisela 2006 ‘Discourse markers as attentional cues at discourse transitions’. In Fischer, Kerstin (ed.) 339–358.Google Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne and Lange, Deborah 1991 ‘The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalisation in progress’. American Speech 66: 227–279.Google Scholar

Ross, John R. 1973 ‘Slifting’. In Gross, Maurice, Halle, Morris and Schützenberger, Marcel-Paul (eds.) The formal analysis of natural languages. Proceedings of the first international conference. The Hague/Paris: Mouton de Gruyter, 133–169.Google Scholar

Rossari, Corinne 2006 ‘Grammaticalization and persistence phenomena in two hybrid discourse markers – la preuve and regarde’. Acta Linguistica Hafniensa 38/1: 161–179.Google Scholar

Rothwell, William 1991 ‘The missing link in English etymology: Anglo-French’. Medium Aevum 60: 173–96.Google Scholar

Rothwell, William 1994 ‘The trilingual England of Geoffrey Chaucer’. Studies in the Age of Chaucer 16: 45–67.Google Scholar

Sakel, Jeanette 2007 ‘Types of loan: matter and pattern’. In Matras, Yaron and Sakel, Jeanette (eds.) Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 15–29.Google Scholar

Schiffrin, Deborah 1985 ‘Conversational coherence: the role of well’. Language 61/3: 640–667.Google Scholar

Schiffrin, Deborah 1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schiffrin, Deborah 1996 ‘Narrative as self-portrait: Sociolinguistic constructions of identity’. Language in Society 29: 167–203.Google Scholar

Schourup, Lawrence 1985 Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Schourup, Lawrence 1999a ‘Discourse markers. Tutorial overview’. Lingua 107: 227–65.Google Scholar

Schourup, Lawrence 1999b ‘Shakespeare’s “well”’. Joshidai Bungaku 51: 83–115.Google Scholar

Schourup, Lawrence 2001 ‘Rethinking well’. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1025–1060,Google Scholar

Sebba, Mark and Tate, Shirley 1986 ‘You know what I mean? Agreement marking in British Black English’. Journal of Pragmatics 10/2: 163–172.Google Scholar

Secova, Maria 2014 ‘“Je sais et tout mais …” might the general extenders in European French be changing?’ Journal of French Language Studies 24/2: 281–304.Google Scholar

Siegel, Muffy E.A. 2002 ‘Like: The Discourse Particle and Semantics’. Journal of Semantics 19: 35–71.Google Scholar

Sifianou, Maria 1992 Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Silverstein, Michael 2003 ‘Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life’. Language and Communication 23: 193–229.Google Scholar

Solís, Marina (2002). ‘The matched guise technique: A critical approximation to a classic test for formal measurement of language attitudes’. [online]. Spain: Universitat de Lleida. Available from: http://www6.gencat.net/llengcat/noves/hm02estiu/metodologia/a_solis2_5.htm [Accessed 18 September 2014].Google Scholar

Stenström, Anna-Brita 1990 ‘Lexical items peculiar to spoken discourse’. In Svartvik, Jan (ed.) The London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research. Lund: Lund University Press, 137–175.Google Scholar

Stenström, Anna-Brita 1995 ‘Some remarks on comment clauses’. In Aarts, Bas and Meyer, Charles F. (eds.) The Verb in Contemporary English: Theory and Description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 290–301.Google Scholar

Stenström, Anna-Brita 2002 Trends in Teenage Talk. Corpus Compilation, Analysis and Findings. Studies in Corpus Linguistics 8. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Stubbe, Maria and Holmes, Janet 1995 ‘You know, eh and other “exasperating expressions”: An analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English’. Language and Communication 15: 63–88.Google Scholar

Svartvik, Jan 1980 ‘Well in conversation.’ In Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan (eds.) Studies in English Linguistics for Randolph Quirk. London: Longman, 167–177.Google Scholar

Sweetser, Eve 1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tabor, Whitney 1993 ‘The Gradual Development of Degree Modifier sort of and kind of: A Corpus Proximity Model.’ In Beals, K., Cooke, G., Cathman, D., McCullough, K., Kita, S. and Testen, D. (eds.) Papers from the 29^th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, Ill: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali 1998 ‘Was/were variation across the generations: View from the city of York’. Language Variation and Change 10/2: 153–191.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali 2001 ‘Comparative sociolinguistics’. In Chambers, J.K., Trudgill, Peter and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.) The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell, 729–763.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali 2005 ‘So who? Like how? Just what? Discourse markers in the conversations of Young Canadians’. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1896–1915.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali 2006 Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali and D’Arcy, Alex 2004 ‘He’s like, she’s like. The quotative system in Canadian youth’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8: 493–514.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali and D’Arcy, Alex 2009 ‘Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation and language change’. Language 85/1: 58–108.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali and Hudson, Rachel 1999 ‘“Be like” et al. beyond America: The quotative system in British and Canadian youth’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3: 147–172.Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah 1986 ‘Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational and literary narrative’. In Coulmas, Florian (ed.) Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 311–322.Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah 1990 You Just Don’t Understand. Men and Women in Conversation. New York: Morrow.Google Scholar

Terkourafi, Marina 2001 Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A Frame-based Approach. Unpublished PhD thesis, Cambridge University.Google Scholar

Terkourafi, Marina 2002 ‘Politeness and formulaicity: Evidence from Cypriot Greek’. Journal of Greek Linguistics 3: 179–201.Google Scholar

Terkourafi, Marina 2005 ‘Beyond the micro-level in politeness research’. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 237–262.Google Scholar

Terkourafi, Marina 2011 ‘Thank you, sorry and please in Cypriot Greek: What happens to politeness markers when they are borrowed across languages?’ Journal of Pragmatics 43:218–235.Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra and Mulac, Anthony 1991 ‘A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English’. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd (eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization. Vol II: Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 313–329.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2010 ‘(Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment’. In Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.) 29–71.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme 2013 Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Trotter, David 2003 ‘Not as eccentric as it looks. Anglo-French and French French’. Forum for Modern Language Studies 39/4: 427–438.Google Scholar

Underhill, Robert 1988 ‘Like is, like focus’. American Speech 63: 234–246.Google Scholar

Unger, Christopher 1996 ‘The scope of discourse connectives: Implications for discourse organization’. Journal of Linguistics 32: 402–438.Google Scholar

Vandelanotte, Lieven and Davidse, Kristin 2009 ‘The emergence and structure of be like and related quotatives: A constructional account’. Cognitive Linguistics 20/4: 777–807.Google Scholar

Verschueren, Jef, Östman, Jan-Ola and Blommaert, Jan 1995 The Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Vincent, Diane 2005 ‘The journey of non-standard discourse markers in Quebec French. Networks based on exemplification’. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6/1: 188–210.Google Scholar

Vincent, Diane and Sankoff, David 1992 ‘Punctors: A pragmatic variable’. Language Variation and Change 4: 205–216.Google Scholar

Vincent, Sophie, Darkaby, Sarah and Mettouchi, Amina 2009 ‘The grammaticalization of you know’. English Text Construction 2/2: 209–227.Google Scholar

Visconti, Jacqueline 2005 ‘On the origins of scalar particles in Italian’. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6/2: 237–261.Google Scholar

Visconti, Jacqueline 2006 ‘The role of lexical semantics in semantic change’. In Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen and Ken Turner (eds.) Explorations in the Semantic/Pragmatics Interface. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 38: 207–234.Google Scholar

Waltereit, Richard 2006 ‘The rise of discourse markers in Italian: A specific type of language change’. In Fischer, Kerstin (ed.) 61–76.Google Scholar

Wang, Yu-Fang and Tsai, Pi-Hua 2005 ‘Hao in spoken Chinese discourse: Relevance and coherence’. Language Sciences 27: 215–243.Google Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 1987 ‘Relevance in conversational moves. A reappraisal of well’. Studia anglica Posnaniensa 19: 37–59.Google Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 1988 ‘A relevance-theoretic approach to commentary pragmatic markers: The case of actually, really and basically’. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38: 235–260.Google Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 1989 ‘Taking the pitcher to the “well”: Native speakers’ perception of their use of discourse markers in conversation’. Journal of Pragmatics 13: 203–237.Google Scholar

Watts, Richard 2003 Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wei, Ming 2011 ‘Investigating the oral proficiency of English learners in China: A comparative study of the use of pragmatic markers’. Journal of Pragmatics 43/14: 203–237.Google Scholar

Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William and Herzog, Marvin 1968 ‘Empirical foundations for a theory of language change’. In Lehmann, W.P. and Malkiel, Yakov (eds.) Directions for Historical Linguistics. Austin/London: University of Texas Press, 97–195.Google Scholar

Weydt, Harald 1969 Abtönungspartikel: Die deutschen Modalwörter und ihre französischen Entsprechungen. Bad Homburg: Gehlen.Google Scholar

Weydt, Harald (ed.) 1979 Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Weydt, Harald 2001 ‘Partikelforschung’. In Holtus, Günter, Metseltin, Michael and Schmitt, Christian (eds.) Lexicon der Romanistischen Linguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (1988–2005), Vol I/1, 782–801.Google Scholar

Weydt, Harald 2006 ‘What are particles good for?’ In Fischer, Kerstin (ed.) 205–218.Google Scholar

Wheeler, Max 1994 ‘Politeness, sociolinguistic theory and language change’. Folia Linguistica Historica 15: 149–174.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, Anna 1991 Cross-cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Winter, Joanne 2002 ‘Discourse quotatives in Australian English: Adolescents performing voices’. Australian Journal of Linguistics 22: 6–21.Google Scholar

Zheng, Qun 2012 A Sociopragmatic Study of Discourse Markers in Chinese and British English speakers. Unpublished PhD Thesis, UWE, Bristol.Google Scholar