Abbott, Barbara. 2000. Presuppositions as nonassertions. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1419–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Abbott, Barbara.2004. Definiteness and indefiniteness. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory, eds., Handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 122–149.Google Scholar

Akatsuka, Noriko. 1986. Conditionals are discourse-bound. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, Meulen, Alice, Reilly, Judy Snitzer, and Ferguson, Charles A., eds., On conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 333–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Akhtar, Nameera. 1998. Characterizing English-speaking children's understanding of SVO word order. In Clark, Eve V., ed., Proceedings of the 29th Annual Child Language Research Forum. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 161–169.Google Scholar

Ansaldo, Umberto. 1999. Comparative constructions in Sinitic: Areal typology and patterns of grammaticalization. PhD dissertation, Department of linguistics, Stockholm University.

Ariel, Mira. 1983. Linguistic marking of social prominence: The Hebrew mi she introducer. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 389–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira.1985. Givenness marking. PhD dissertation, Tel Aviv University.

Ariel, Mira.1987. Reflexives and reciprocals. Unpublished MS, Tel Aviv University.

Ariel, Mira.1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira.1991. The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar. Journal of Pragmatics 16: 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira.1994. Interpreting anaphoric expressions: A cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journal of Linguistics 30: 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira.1996. Referring expressions and the +/− coreference distinction. In Fretheim, Thorstein and Gundel, Jeanette K., eds., Reference and referent accessibility (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 13–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira.1998a. The linguistic status of the “here and now.”Cognitive Linguistics 9: 189–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira.1998b. Three grammaticalization paths for the development of person verbal agreement in Hebrew. In Koenig, Jean-Pierre, ed., Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 93–111.Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira.1998c. Discourse markers and form-function correlations. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Ziv, Yael, eds., Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 223–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira.1999a. Cognitive universals and linguistic conventions: The case of resumptive pronouns. Studies in Language 23: 217–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira.1999b. Mapping so-called “pragmatic” phenomena according to a “linguistic–extralinguistic” distinction: The case of propositions marked “accessible”. In Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith A., Newmeyer, Frederick, Noonan, Michael, and Wheatley, Kathleen M., eds., Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, vol. 2: Case studies (Studies in Language Companion Series 41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 11–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira.2000. The development of person agreement markers: From pronouns to higher accessibility markers. In Barlow, Michael and Kemmer, Suzanne, eds., Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 197–260.Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira.2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In Sanders, Ted, Schilperoord, Joost, and Spooren, Wilbert, eds., Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 29–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira.2002a. The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 361–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira.2002b. Privileged Interactional Interpretations. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1003–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira.2002c. The possessive NP construction: Discourse function and discourse profile. In Berkeley Linguistics Society 28. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 15–26.Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira.2003. Does most mean ‘more than half’? In Berkeley Linguistics Society 29. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 17–30.Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira.2004a. Accessibility marking: Discourse functions, discourse profiles, and processing cues. Discourse Processes 37: 91–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira.2004b. Most. Language 80: 658–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira.2006a. The making of a construction: From reflexive marking to lower transitivity. Unpublished MS, Tel Aviv University.

Ariel, Mira.2006b. A ‘just that’ lexical meaning for most. In Heusinger, Klaus and Turner, Ken, eds., Where semantics meets pragmatics (Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface). London: Elsevier, 49–91.Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira.2007a. Relational and independent strategies in interpreting and conjunctions. Unpublished MS, Tel Aviv University.

Ariel, Mira.2007b. Xaval al ha-zman: On the role of explicatures in semanticization. Unpublished MS, Tel Aviv University.

Ariel, Mira.2007c. A grammar in every register? The case of definite descriptions. In Hedberg, Nancy and Zacharsky, Ron, eds., The grammar–pragmatics interface: Essays in honor of Jeanette K. Gundel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 265–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira.Forthcoming. Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Arnold, Jennifer, Wasow, Thomas, Losongco, Anthony, and Ginstrom, Ryan. 2000. Heaviness versus newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76: 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark.1987. Review article of Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form by Joan L. Bybee. Language 63: 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aronoff, Mark.1997. Gender as unnatural grammar. Paper presented at the Haifa University English Department colloquium, Haifa, June 4, 1997.

Aslin, Richard N., Saffran, Jenny R., and Newport, Elissa L.. 1999. Statistical learning in linguistic and nonlinguistic domains. In MacWhinney, Brian, ed., The emergence of language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 359–380.Google Scholar

Atlas, Jay David. 1975. Frege's polymorphous concept of presupposition and its role in a theory of meaning. Semantikos 1: 29–44.Google Scholar

Atlas, Jay David.1977. Negation, ambiguity, and presupposition. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atlas, Jay David.2004. Presupposition. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory, eds., Handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 29–52.Google Scholar

Atlas, Jay David and Levinson, Stephen C.. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In Cole, Peter, ed., Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 1–61.Google Scholar

Bach, Kent. 1994. Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language 9: 124–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, Kent.1999. The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 327–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, Kent.2000. Quantification, qualification and context: A reply to Stanley and Szabo. Mind and Language 15: 262–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, Kent.2001. You don't say? Synthese 128: 15–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, Kent.2002. Semantic, pragmatic. In Cambell, Joseph Keim, O'Rourke, Michael, and Shier, David, eds., Meaning and truth. New York: Seven Bridges Press, 284–292.Google Scholar

Bach, Kent.2004a. Pragmatics and the philosophy of language. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory, eds., Handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 463–487.Google Scholar

Bach, Kent.2004b. Minding the gap. In Bianchi, Claudia, ed., The semantics/pragmatics distinction. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 27–43.Google Scholar

Bach, Kent.2006. The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. In Birner, Betty J. and Ward, Gregory, eds., Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, C. L. 1995. Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English. Language 71: 63–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua. 1971. Out of the pragmatic wastebasket. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 401–407.Google Scholar

Bar-Lev, Zev and Palacas, Arthur. 1980. Semantic command over pragmatic priority. Lingua 51: 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bardenstein, Ruti. 2005. The pragmatics of diminutive quantifiers in Modern Hebrew. MA Thesis, Linguistics, Tel Aviv University.

Barwise, Jon and Perry, John. 1983. Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bates, Elizabeth. 2001. Class notes from “Psycholinguistics: A cross-language perspective.” LSA summer school, UC Santa Barbara.

Bates, Elizabeth and Goodman, Judith C.. 1997. On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon: Evidence from acquisition, aphasia and real-time processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 12: 507–584.Google Scholar

Bates, Elizabeth and Goodman, Judith C..1999. On the emergence of grammar from the lexicon. In MacWhinney, Brian, ed., The emergence of language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 29–79.Google Scholar

Bates, Elizabeth and MacWhinney, Brian. 1982. A functionalist approach to grammatical development. In Wanner, Eric and Gleitman, Leila, eds., Language acquisition: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press.Google Scholar

Bates, Elizabeth and MacWhinney, Brian.1989. Functionalism and the competition model. In MacWhinney, Brian and Bates, Elizabeth, eds., The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–73.Google Scholar

Bazerman, Charles. 1988. Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

Bendavid, Abba. 1971. Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, vol. 2. Jerusalem: Dvir.Google Scholar

Berg, Jonathan. 1993. Literal meaning and context. Iyyun 42: 397–411.Google Scholar

Berg, Jonathan.2002. Is semantics still possible? Journal of Pragmatics 34: 349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berkenfield, Catie. 2001. The role of frequency in the realization of English that. In Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul J., eds., Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Typological Studies in Language 45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berlin, Adele, Brettler, Marc Zvi and Fishbane, Michael, eds. 2004. The Jewish study Bible. New York: Oxford University Press.

Berman, Ruth A. and Armon-Lotem, Sharon. 1996. How grammatical are early verbs? In Martinot, C., ed., Annales Littéraires de l'Université de Franche-Comté: Actes du Colloque International sur l'Acquisition de la syntaxe, 17–56.

Bezuidenhout, Anne and Cutting, J. Cooper. 2002. Literal meaning, minimal propositions, and pragmatic processing. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 433–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar

Birner, Betty J. 1994. Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language 70: 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Birner, Betty J. and Ward, Gregory L.. 1998. Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Blakemore, Diane and Carston, Robyn. 2005. The pragmatics of sentential coordination with and. Lingua 115: 569–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bock, Kathryn J. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18: 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bock, Kathryn J. and Griffin, Zenzi M.. 2000. The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 129: 177–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bock, Kathryn J. and Kroch, Anthony S.. 1989. The isolability of syntactic processing. In Carlson, Greg N. and Tanenhaus, Michael K., eds., Linguistic structure in language processing (Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics). Dordrecht: Kluwer, 157–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bock, Kathryn J. and Loebell, Helga. 1990. Framing sentences. Cognition 5: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bod, Rens. 1998. Beyond grammar: An experience-based theory of language (CSLI Lecture Notes 88). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Bod, Rens.2005. Exemplar-based syntax. Paper presented at the 2005 LSA meeting, Oakland, CA.

Bod, Rens.2006. Exemplar-based syntax: How to get productivity from examples? The Linguistic Review, special issue: Exemplar-based models of language, 23: 291–320.Google Scholar

Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer, and Jannedy, Stefanie. 2003a. Introduction. In Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer, and Jannedy, Stefanie, eds., Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–10.Google Scholar

Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer and Jannedy, Stefanie.eds., 2003b. Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bolinger, Dwight L. 1972. That's that. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight L. 1985. Two views of accent. Journal of Linguistics 21: 79–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight L. 1989. Intonation and its uses: Melody in grammar and discourse. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Borg, Emma. 2005a. Saying what you mean: Unarticulated constituents and communication. In Elugardo, Reinaldo and Stainton, Robert J., eds., Ellipsis and nonsentential speech. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borg, Emma.2005b. Pragmatic determinants of what is said. In Brown, Keith, ed., Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 737–740.Google Scholar

Borochovsky Bar-Abba, Esther. 2006. From speaking to the newspaper – an examination of parallel texts (in Hebrew). In Ben-Shahar, Rina and Toury, Gideon, eds., Hebrew – a living language. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute and Ha-Kibbutz Ha-Meuchad, 7–32.Google Scholar

Boroditsky, Lera. 2000. Metaphoric structuring: understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bowerman, Melissa. 1996. The origins of children's spatial semantic categories: Cognitive versus linguistic determinants. In Gumperz, John and Levinson, Stephen, eds., Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 145–176.Google Scholar

Boyland, Joyce Tang T., and Anderson, John R.. 1998. Evidence that syntactic priming is long-lasting. In Gernsbacher, Morton Ann and Derry, Sharon J., eds., Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J., and Cleland, Alexander A.. 2000. Syntactic coordination in dialogue. Cognition 75: B13–B25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J., Stewart, Andrew J., and McLean, Janet F.. 2000. Syntactic priming in spoken production: Linguistic and temporal interference. Memory and Cognition 28: 1297–1302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bresnan, Joan. 2006. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. Paper presented at International conference on linguistic evidence, Tübingen.

Bresnan, Joan and Hay, Jennifer. To appear. Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua, special issue: Animacy.

Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana and Baayen, R. Harald. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Boume, Gerlof, Krämer, Irene, and Zwarts, Joost, eds., Cognitive foundations of interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, 69–94.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burton-Roberts, Noel. 2005. Robyn Carston on semantics, pragmatics and “encoding.”Journal of Linguistics 41: 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 1985a. Diagrammatic iconicity in stem-inflection relations. In Haiman, John, ed., Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 11–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 1985b. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form (Typological Studies in Language 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 1988. Semantic substance vs. contrast in the development of grammatical meaning. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 247–264.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 1998. The emergent lexicon. In Gruber, M. C., Higgins, D., Olson, K. S., and Wysocki, T., eds., Chicago Linguistic Society 34(2): The Panels. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 421–435.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2000. The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In Barlow, Michael and Kemmer, Suzanne, eds., Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 65–85.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2001. Phonology and language use (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2002. Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In Givón, Talmy and Malle, Bertram F., eds., The evolution of language out of pre-language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 109–134.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2003a. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of repetition. In Janda, Richard and Joseph, Brian D., eds., Handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 602–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2003b. Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In Tomasello, Michael, ed., The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 145–167.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2005. The impact of use on representation: Grammar is usage and usage is grammar. Presidential address at the 2005 LSA meeting, Oakland, CA.

Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul J., eds. 2001a. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure(Typological Studies in Language 45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul J. 2001b. Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul J., eds., Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Typological Studies in Language 45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. and Pagliuca, William. 1985. Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning. In Fisiak, Jacek, ed., Historical semantics: Historical word formation. Berlin: de Gruyter, 59–83.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. and Scheibman, Joanne. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don't in English. Linguistics 37: 575–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D. and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Cappelen, Herman and Lepore, Ernest. 2005. Insensitive semantics: A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carden, Guy and Stewart, William A.. 1988. Binding theory, bioprogram, and creolization: Evidence from Haitian Creole. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 3: 1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carrel, Patricia L. and Richter, Gabriela. 1981. On presuppositions and speaker-beliefs. Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication 14: 47–69.Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn. 1984. Semantic and pragmatic analyses of and. Paper presented at the Linguistic Association of Great Britain, April 1984.

Carston, Robyn.1988. Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In Kempson, Ruth M., ed., Mental representations: The interface between language and reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 155–181. (Reprinted in Kasher, ed., 1998, vol. 4: 436–479.)Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn.1990. Quantity maxims and generalised implicature. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2:1–31. (Reprinted in Lingua 96:213–244.)Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn.1993. Conjunction, explanation and Relevance. Lingua 90: 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carston, Robyn.1998a. Pragmatics and the explicit-implicit distinction. PhD dissertation, University of London.

Carston, Robyn.1998b. Negation, “presupposition” and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Journal of Linguistics 34: 309–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carston, Robyn.1999. Negation, “presupposition” and metarepresentation: A response to Noel Burton-Roberts. Journal of Linguistics 35: 365–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carston, Robyn.2002a. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carston, Robyn.2002b. Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind and Language 17: 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carston, Robyn.2004a. Truth-conditional content and conversational implicature. In Bianchi, Claudia, ed., The semantics/pragmatics distinction. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 65–100.Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn.2004b. Explicature and semantics. In Davis, Steven and Gillon, Brendan, eds., Semantics: A reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 817–845.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, Charles N., ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 25–55.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace L. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Tannen, Deborah, ed., Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (Advances in Discourse Processes 9). Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 35–53.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace L. 1988. Linking intonation units in spoken English. In Haiman, John and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–27.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace L. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of consciousness experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace L. and Danielewicz, Jane. 1987. Properties of spoken and written language. In Horowitz, Rosalind and Samuels, S. Jay, eds., Comprehending oral and written language. New York: Academic Press, 83–113.Google Scholar

Chang, Franklin, Dell, Gary S., Bock, Kathryn J., and Griffin, Zenzi M.. 2000. Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 217–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Chierchia, Gennaro and McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1990. Meaning and grammar: An introduction to semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam.1972. Language and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam.1981. Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam.2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy (MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Choueka, Yaakov. 1997. Rav-Milim: A comprehensive dictionary of Modern Hebrew. Tel Aviv: C.E.T and Miskal.Google Scholar

Cifuentes-Férez, Paula and Gentner, Dedre. 2006. Naming motion events in Spanish and English. Cognitive Linguistics 17: 443–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clancy, Patricia M. 1980. Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In Chafe, Wallace, ed., The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production, vol. 3. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 127–202.Google Scholar

Clancy, Patricia M. 1989. Form and function in the acquisition of Korean wh- questions. Journal of Child Language 16: 323–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Clancy, Patricia M.in press. Discourse-functional correlates of argument structure in Korean acquisition. In McGloin, Naomi, ed., Japanese/Korean linguistics, 15. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1–20.

Clark, Eve V. and Clark, Herbert H.. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55: 767–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 1998. Communal lexicons. In Malmkjaer, Kirsten and Williams, John, eds., Context in language learning and language understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 63–87.Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. and Marshall, Catherine R.. 1981. Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshi, Aravind K., Webber, Bonnie L., and Sag, Ivan A., eds., Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 10–63.Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Claudi, Ulrike and Heine, Bernd. 1986. On the metaphorical base of grammar. Studies in language 10: 297–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clausner, Timothy, Rapp, Brends, and Su, Yi-ching. 1996. Does frequency determine the storage of compounds? Evidence from Chinese. Poster presented at the 18th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society '96, La Jolla, CA.

Cohen, Dana. 2004. Intensive reflexives – from sentence to discourse. PhD dissertation, the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Cohen, Jonathan L. 1971. Some remarks on Grice's view about the logical particles of natural language. In Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua, ed., Pragmatics of natural languages. Dordrecht: Reidel, 50–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, Uriel. 2005. Acceptance of gapped sentences where verbs are adapted differently. Tel Aviv University seminar paper.

Cole, Peter. 1981. Preface. In Cole, Peter, ed., Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, xi–xiv.Google Scholar

Coleman, Linda and Kay, Paul. 1981. Prototype semantics: The English word lie. Language 57: 26–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Lehmann, Winfred P., ed., Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language. Austin: University of Texas Press, 329–394.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1980. Language typology and linguistic universals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard.1983. Form and function in explaining language universals. Linguistics 21: 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Comrie, Bernard.1988. Topics, grammaticalized topics, and subjects. In Berkeley Linguistics Society 14. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 265–279.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard.1994a. Language universals and linguistic typology: Data-bases and explanations. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 46: 3–14.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard.1994b. Coreference: Between grammar and discourse. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the Kansai Linguistic Society (1993), 1–10.

Comrie, Bernard.1997. Pragmatic binding: Demonstratives as anaphors in Dutch. In Berkeley Linguistics Society 23. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 50–61.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard.1998. Reference-tracking: description and explanation. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 51: 335–346.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 2003. On explaining language universals. In Tomasello, Michael, ed., The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 195–209.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard and Kuteva, Tania. 2005a. Relativization strategies. In Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David, and Comrie, Bernard, eds., The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 494–501.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard and Kuteva, Tania.2005b. The evolution of grammatical structures and “functional need” explanations. In Tallerman, Maggie, ed., Language origins: Perspectives on evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 185–207.Google Scholar

Cooper, William E. and Ross, John Robert. 1975. Word order. In Grossman, Robin E., San, L. James and Vance, Timothy J., eds., Chicago Linguistic Society: Papers from the parasession on functionalism. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 63–111.Google Scholar

Craig, Colette G. 1991. Ways to go in Rama: A case study in polygrammaticalization. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd, eds., Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 2: Focus on types of grammatical markers (Typological Studies in Language 19:1, 19:2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 455–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croft, William. 1990/2003. Typology and universals (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Croft, William.1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Croft, William.1993a. A noun is a noun is a noun – or is it? Some reflections on the universality of semantics. In Berkeley Linguistics Society 19. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 369–380.Google Scholar

Croft, William.1993b. Functional-typological theory in its historical and intellectual context. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 46: 15–26.Google Scholar

Croft, William.2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Croft, William, Shyldkrot, Hava Bat-Zeev and Kemmer, Suzanne. 1987. Diachronic semantic processes in the Middle Voice. In Ramat, Anna Giacalone, Carruba, Onofrio, and Bernini, Giuliano, eds., Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dahl, Östen. 2001. Inflationary effects in language and elsewhere. In Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul J., eds., Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Typological Studies in Language 45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 471–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Deane, Paul D. 1992. Grammar in mind and brain. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Delong, Katherine A., Urbach, Thomas P., and Kutas, Marta. 2005. Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience 8: 1117–1121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Guy, Deutscher. 2005. The unfolding of language. London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar

Diderot, D. 1751/1875. Lettre sur les Sourds et muets. Oeuvres complètes de Diderot, vol I. Paris: Garnier Frères.Google Scholar

Dik, Simon C. 1986. On the notion “functional explanation.”Belgian Journal of Linguistics 1: 11–52.Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55: 59–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dixon, Robert M. W. 1982. Where have all the adjectives gone? Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dixon, Robert M. W. 1988. A grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Donohue, Mark. 2006. Argument structure and adjuncts: Perspectives from Northern New Guinea. Paper presented at Berkeley Linguistics Society 32, Berkeley.

Dowty, David. 2003. The dual analysis of adjuncts/complements in categorial grammar. In Lang, Ewald, Maienborn, Claudia, and Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine, eds., Modifying adjuncts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Du Bois, John W. 1974. Syntax in mid-sentence. In Berkeley studies in syntax and semantics, vol. 1. Berkeley: Department of Linguistics and Institute of Human Learning, University of California, III-1–III-25.Google Scholar

Du Bois, John W. 1980. Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In Chafe, Wallace L., ed., The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 203–274.Google Scholar

Du Bois, John W. 1985. Competing motivations. In Haiman, John, ed., Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 343–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63: 805–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Du Bois, John W. 1998. Reference and identification: Definiteness from a discourse point of view. Talk given at Tel Aviv University colloquium, Dec. 29, 1998.

Du Bois, John W. 2003a. Argument structure: Grammar in use. In Du Bois, John W., Kumpf, Lorraine E., and Ashby, William J., eds., Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 11–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Du Bois, John W. 2003b. Discourse and grammar. In Tomasello, Michael, ed., The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 47–87.Google Scholar

Du Bois, John W. 2004. Dialogic syntax: The syntax of engagement. Talk given at the Linguistics Dept. Tel Aviv University, Jan. 22, 2004.

Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Englebretson, Robert, ed., Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 139–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Du Bois, John W. and Engelbretson, Robert. 2004. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Part 3. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.

Du Bois, John W. and Engelbretson, Robert.2005. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Part 4. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.

Du Bois, John W., Chafe, Wallace L., Meyer, Charles, and Thompson, Sandra A.. 2000. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Part 1. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.

Du Bois, John W., Chafe, Wallace L., Meyer, Charles, Thompson, Sandra A., and Martey, Nii. 2003. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Part 2. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. University of Pennsylvania.

Du Bois, John W., Kumpf, Lorraine E., and Ashby, William J., eds. 2003. Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Ducrot, Oswald. 1972. Dire et ne pas dire: Principes de semantique linguistique. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar

Duranti, Alessandro. 1997 Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Durie, Mark. 1995a. Towards an understanding of linguistic evolution and the notion “X has a function Y.” In Abraham, Werner, Givón, Talmy, and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., Discourse grammar and typology (Studies in Language Companion Series 27). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 275–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Durie, Mark. 1995b. Language, function and time. MS, University of Melbourne.

Eisenberg, Dana. 2005. Anaphoric expressions and the semantics of and conjunctions. Seminar paper, Tel Aviv University.

Elman, Jeffrey L. 2001. Connectionism and language acquisition. In Tomasello, Michael and Bates, Elizabeth, eds., Language development: The essential readings (Essential Readings in Developmental Psychology). Oxford: Blackwell, 295–306.Google Scholar

Engelbretson, Robert ed. 2007. Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Erman, Britt and Warren, Beatrice. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20: 29–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ernestus, Mirjam. 2005. Systematic analogical effects in regular past tense production in Dutch: Adult production and children's acquisition. Paper delivered at the 2005 LSA meeting, Oakland, CA.

Erteschik-Shir, Nomi and Lappin, Shalom. 1979. Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics 6: 41–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Even Shoshan, Avraham. 1982. The new dictionary (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer.Google Scholar

Faltz, Leonard M. 1977/1985. Reflexivization: A study in universal syntax. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Farmer, Ann Kathleen. 1980. On the interaction of morphology and syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.

Farmer, Ann Kathleen.1984. Modularity in syntax: A study of Japanese and English (Current Studies in Linguistics 9). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Farr, J. M. 1905. Intensives and reflexives in Anglo-Saxon and Early Middle English. Baltimore: J. H. Furst.Google Scholar

Firth, John Rupert. 1957. A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955. In Firth, John Rupert, ed., Studies in linguistic analysis: Special volume of the Philological Society. Oxford: Blackwell, 1–32.Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga C. M. 2003. Principles of grammaticalization and linguistic reality. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta, eds., Determinants of grammatical variation in English (Topics in English Linguistics 43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 445–478.Google Scholar

Foley, William and Robert, D.Valin, Jr. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E. 1993. Grammar in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox, Barbara A. 1987. The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy reinterpreted: Subject primacy or the absolutive hypothesis?Language 63: 856–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frazier, Lyn. 1985. Syntactic complexity. In Dowty, David R., Karttunen, Lauri, and Zwicky, Arnold M., eds., Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives (Studies in Natural Language Processing 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 129–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frazier, Lyn.1990. Exploring the architecture of the language-processing system. In Altmann, Gerry T. M., ed., Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (ACL–MIT Press Series in Natural Language Processing). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books, 409–433.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. 1892. On sense and reference. In Geach, Peter and Black, Max, eds., Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege, 1952. Oxford: Blackwell, 56–78.Google Scholar

Gahl, Susanne and Garnsey, Susan. 2004. Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language 80: 748–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gamut, L. T. F. 1991. Logic, language, and meaning, vol. 1: Introduction to logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Garrod, Simon and Anderson, Anthony. 1987. Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic coordination. Cognition 27: 181–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gast, Volker. 2006. The grammar of identity: Intensifiers and reflexives in Germanic languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gazdar, Gerald. 1979a. Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Gazdar, Gerald. 1979b. A solution to the projection problem. In Oh, Chooh-Kyr and Dinneen, David A., eds., Syntax and semantics, vol. 11: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press. 57–89.Google Scholar

Geeraerts, Dirk and Grondelaers, Stefan. 1995. Looking back at anger: Cultural traditions and metaphorical patterns. In Maclaury, Robert E. and Taylor, John R., eds., Language and the cognitive construal of the world. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 153–180.Google Scholar

Geis, Michael L. and Zwicky, Arnold M.. 1971. On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 561–566.Google Scholar

Geluykens, Ronald. 1992. From discourse process to grammatical construction: On left dislocation in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gernsbacher, Morton Ann and Shroyer, Suzanne. 1989. The cataphoric use of the indefinite this in spoken narratives. Memory and Cognition 17: 536–540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Giacalone, Ramat Anna and Hopper, Paul J.. 1998. Introduction. In Ramat, Anna Giacalone and Hopper, Paul J., eds., The limits of grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. 2004. Psycholinguistic experiments and linguistics–pragmatics. In Noveck, Ira A. and Sperber, Dan, eds., Experimental pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 172–186.Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. and Moise, Jessica F.. 1997. Pragmatics in understanding what is said. Cognition 62: 51–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Giora, Rachel. 1997. Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 8: 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giora, Rachel 2003. On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Li, Charles N., ed., Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, 149–188.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy.ed. 1979a. Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press.

Givón, Talmy.1979b. On understanding grammar (Perspectives in Neurolinguistics and Psycholinguistics). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy.ed. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, Talmy.1984. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, Talmy.1990. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy.1991. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. Studies in Language 15: 85–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, Talmy.1992. The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistics 30: 5–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, Talmy.1993. English grammar: A function-based introduction, vols. 1 and 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy.1999. Generativity and variation: The notion “rule of grammar” revisited. In MacWhinney, Brian, ed., The emergence of language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 81–109.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy.2002. Bio-linguistics: The Santa Barbara lectures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 2004. Pragmatics and argument structure. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory, eds., The Handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 427–441.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. and Jackendoff, Ray. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80: 532–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E., Casenhiser, Devin M., and Sethuraman, Nitya. 2004. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 15: 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, Mitchell S. 1995. Quantity, volubility, and some varieties of discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 83–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L., eds., Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press, 41–58.Google Scholar

Grice, H. Paul. 1981. Presupposition and conversational implicature. In Cole, Peter, ed., Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 183–198.Google Scholar

Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. Towards a corpus-based indentification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2005. Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34: 365–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy, and Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haiman, John. 1980. Dictionaries and encyclopedias. Lingua 50: 329–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haiman, John.1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59: 781–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haiman, John.1985a. Natural syntax: Iconicity and erosion (Current Studies in Linguistics 44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haiman, John.ed. 1985b. Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Haiman, John.1994. Ritualization and the development of language. In William, Pagliuca, ed., Perspectives on grammaticalization (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haiman, John.1998. Talk is cheap. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Hare, Mary and Jeffrey, L. Elman. 1995. Learning and morphological change. Cognition 56: 61–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hare, Mary L., Ford, Michael, and Marslen-Wilson, William D.. 2001. Ambiguity and frequency effects in regular verb inflection. In Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul J., eds., Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Typological Studies in Language 45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harnish, Robert M. and Farmer, Ann K.. 1984. Pragmatics and the modularity of the linguistic system. Lingua 63: 255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, Alice C. and Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1999a. Explaining article-possessor complementarity: Economic motivation in noun phrase syntax. Language 75: 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin.1999b. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37: 1043–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin.2004a. Does linguistic explanation presuppose linguistic description? Studies in Language 28: 554–579.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin.2004b. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel, and Perridon, Harry, eds., Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin.2004c. A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Paper presented at the “Reciprocity and reflexivity – description, typology and theory workshop,” Free University of Berlin, October 2004.

Haspelmath, Martin.2006a. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of linguistics 42: 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin.2006b. A Review of Du Bois, John W., Kumpf, Lorraine E., and Ashby, William J. eds. Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Language 82: 908–912.

Haspelmath, Martin.to appear. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics19.

Hawkins, John A. 1990. A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 223–261.Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 2003. Efficiency and complexity in grammars: Three general principles. In Moore, John and Polinsky, Maria, eds., The nature of explanation in linguistic theory. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 121–152.Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heim, Irene. 1983a. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Rainer, Bäuerle, Christoph, Schwarze, and Stechow, Arnim, eds., Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Berlin: de Gruyter, 164–189.Google Scholar

Heim, Irene. 1983b. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Barlow, Michael, Flickinger, Daniel P., and Wescoat, Michael T., eds., Proceedings of the 2nd Annual West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 114–125.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 1994a. Principles of grammaticalization. MS, University of Cologne.

Heine, Bernd. 1994b. Grammaticalization as an explanatory parameter. In Pagliuca, William, ed., Perspectives on grammaticalization (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 255–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalization. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D., eds., The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 575–601.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 2005. On reflexive forms in creoles. Lingua 115: 201–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, Bernd and Reh, Mechthild. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike, and Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991a. From cognition to grammar: Evidence from African languages. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd, eds., Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues (Typological Studies in Language 19:1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 149–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike and Hünnemeyer, Friederike.1991b. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., and Wiemer, Björn, eds., What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 158). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 21–44.Google Scholar

Hirschberg, Julia Bell. 1991. A theory of scalar implicature. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Hooper, Joan B. 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In Christie, W., ed., Current progress in historical linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 96–105.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent grammar. In Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 139–157.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd, eds., Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues (Typological Studies in Language 19:1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra A..1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60: 703–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra A..1993. Language universals, discourse pragmatics, and semantics. Language Sciences 15: 357–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra A..2001. Grammatical fragments and social action in conversation. Paper delivered at the 7th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. UC Santa Barbara, July 22–27, 2001.

Hopper, Paul J. and Closs Traugott, Elizabeth. 1993/2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. Mimeo, Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Horn, Laurence R. 1984. A new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicatures. In Schiffrin, Deborah, ed., Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 11–42.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R. 1985. Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language 61: 121–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R. 1992. The said and the unsaid. In Barker, Chris and Dowty, David, eds., Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT II). Columbus: Ohio State University Linguistics Department, 163–192.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R. 1996. Presupposition and implicature. In Lappin, Shalom, ed., The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 299–319.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R. 2004. Implicature. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory, eds., Handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 3–28.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R. 2006. The Border Wars: a neo-Gricean perspective. In Turner, Ken and Heusinger, Klaus, eds., Where semantics meets pragmatics. London: Elsevier, 21–48.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R. 2007. Toward a Fregean pragmatics: Voraussetzung, Nebengedanke, Andeutung. In Kecskes, Istvan and Horn, Laurence R., eds., Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects: Mouton, 39–69.Google Scholar

Howes, Davis H. and Solomon, Richard L.. 1951. Visual duration threshold as a function of word-probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology 41: 401–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A cross-linguistic study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney. 1988. English grammar: An outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney.2002. The clause: complements. In Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K., eds., The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 213–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K., eds. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Huddleston, Rodney, Payne, John, and Peterson, Peter. 2002. Coordination and supplementation. In Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K., eds., The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1273–1362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hundt, Marianne. 2001. What corpora tell us about the grammaticalisation of voice in get-constructions. Studies in Language 25: 49–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. 1983. Form and substance in language universals. Linguistics 21: 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Itkonen, Esa. 2002. Grammaticalization as an analogue of hypothetico-deductive thinking. In Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele, eds., New reflections on grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Izre'el, Shlomo. 2002. A corpus of Spoken Israeli Hebrew (CoSIH): Text examples. Leshonenu 64:289–314 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1971. Quest for the essence of language. In Jakobson, Roman, ed., Roman Jakobson selected writings, vol. 2. The Hague: Mouton, 345–359.Google Scholar

Johnson, Keith. 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalization. In Johnson, Keith and Mullennix, John W., eds., Talker variability in speech processing. San Diego: Academic Press, 145–165.Google Scholar

Johnson, Marcia K., Bransford, John D., and Solomon, Susan K.. 1973. Memory for tacit implications of sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology 98: 203–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joseph, Brian D. 1992. Diachronic explanation: Putting speakers back into the picture. In Davis, Garry W. and Iverson, Gregory K., eds., Explanations in historical linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 123–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D., eds. 2003. The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRef

Jung-Beeman, Mark. 2006. Bilateral brain processes involved in understanding natural language. Paper presented at “Brain and language: Theoretical and clinical perspectives,” Bar-Ilan University.

Jurafsky, Daniel. 1996. Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language 72: 533–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan, and Girand, Cynthia. 2002. The role of the lemma in form variation. In Gussenhoven, Carlos and Warner, Natasha, eds., Laboratory Phonology VII. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 3–34.Google Scholar

Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan, Gregory, Michelle, and Raymond, William D.. 2001. Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexicon production. In Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul J., eds., Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Typological Studies in Language 45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 229–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kadmon, Nirit. 2001. Formal pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Kamp, Hans. 1995. Discourse representation theory. In Verschueren, Jef, Östman, Jan-Ola, Blommaert, Jan and Bulcaen, Chris, eds., Handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 253–257.Google Scholar

Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003. Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 115). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Karttunen, Lauri. 1973. Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 169–193.Google Scholar

Karttunen, Lauri.1974. Presuppositions and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Karttunen, Lauri and Peters, Stanley. 1979. Conventional implicature. In Oh, Choon-Kyu and Dinneen, David A., eds., Syntax and semantics, vol. 11: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press, 1–56.Google Scholar

Kasher, Asa. 1976. Conversational maxims and rationality. In Kasher, Asa, ed., Language in focus: Foundations, methods and systems. Dordrecht: Reidel, 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kasher, Asa.1982. Gricean inference revisited. Philosophica 29: 25–44.Google Scholar

Kasher, Asa.ed. 1998. Pragmatics: Critical concepts. 6 vols. London: Routledge.

Katz, Jerrold J. 1972. Semantic theory. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Kautzsch, E. 1898. Gesenius' Hebrew grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Keenan, Edward L. 1971. Two kinds of presupposition in natural language. In Fillmore, Charles J. and Langendoen, D. Terence, eds., Studies in linguistic semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 45–52.Google Scholar

Keenan, Edward L. 1996. Creating anaphors: An historical study of the English reflexive pronouns. Unpublished MS, UCLA.

Keenan, Edward L. 2002. Explaining the creation of reflexive pronouns in English. In Minkova, Donka and Stockwell, Robert, eds., Studies in the history of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 325–355.Google Scholar

Keenan, Edward L. 2003. An historical explanation of some binding theoretic facts in English. In Moore, John and Polinsky, Maria, eds., The nature of explanation in linguistic theory. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 212–256.Google Scholar

Keenan, Edward L. and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.Google Scholar

Keenan (Ochs), Elinor. 1977. Why look at planned and unplanned discourse? In Keenan (Ochs), Elinor and Bennett, T., eds., Discourse across time and space (Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5). Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1–42.Google Scholar

Keller, Rudi. 1994. On language change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice (Typological Studies in Language 23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kemmer, Suzanne.1995. Emphatic and reflexive -self: Expectations, viewpoint, and subjectivity. In Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan, eds., Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kemmer, Suzanne and Barlow, Michael. 1996. Emphatic -self in discourse. In Goldberg, Adele E., ed., Conceptual structure, discourse, and language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 231–248.Google Scholar

Kemmer, Suzanne and Barlow, Michael.2000. Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In Barlow, Michael and Kemmer, Suzanne, eds., Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, vii–xviii.Google Scholar

Kemmer, Suzanne and Verhagen, Arie. 1994. The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics 5: 115–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kempson, Ruth M. 1975. Presupposition and the delimitation of semantics (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kempson, Ruth M. 1984. Weak crossover, logical form and pragmatics. Paper presented at GLOW, April 1984.

Kempson, Ruth M., Cann, Ronnie, and Purver, Matthew. To appear. Talking and listening: Dialogue and the grammar-pragmatics interface. In Hackl, Martin and Thornton, Robert, eds., Asserting, meaning and implying. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kiparsky, Paul. 1990. Strong reflexives in Germanic. Paper presented at Diachronic syntax, York.

Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 1991. Scalar predicates and negation: Punctual semantics and interval interpretations. In Chicago Linguistic Society 27. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 140–155.Google Scholar

König, Ekkehard and Siemund, Peter. 2000. Intensifiers and reflexives: A typological perspective. In Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and Curl, Traci S., eds., Reflexives: Forms and functions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 41–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

König, Ekkehard and Siemund, Peter (with Töpper, Stephan). 2005. Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns. In Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew, Gil, David, and Comrie, Bernard, eds., The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 194–197.Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltán. 1995. Anger: Its language, conceptualization, and physiology in the light of cross-cultural evidence. In Maclaury, Robert E. and Taylor, John R., eds., Language and the cognitive construal of the world. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 181–196.Google Scholar

Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krug, Manfred.2001. Frequency, iconicity, categorization: Evidence from emerging modals. In Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul J., eds., Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Typological Studies in Language 45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 309–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krug, Manfred.2003. Frequency as a determinant in grammatical variation and change. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta, eds., Determinants of grammatical variation in English (Topics in English Linguistics 43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 7–67.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1973. The boundaries of words and their meanings. In Bailey, Charles-James N. and Shuy, Roger W., eds., New ways of analyzing variation in English. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 340–373.Google Scholar

Labov, William.1980. The social origins of sound change. In Labov, William, ed., Locating language in time and space (Quantitative Analyses of Linguistic Structure 1). New York: Academic Press, 251–265.Google Scholar

Labov, William.1990. On the adequacy of natural languages, I: The development of tense. In Singler, John Victor, ed., Pidgin and creole tense-mood-aspect systems (Creole Language Library 6). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–58.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

Ladd, D. Robert. 1990. Intonation: Emotion vs. grammar. Language 66: 806–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud. 1984. A pragmatic constraint on lexical subjects in spoken French. In Chicago Linguistic Society 20. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 239–256.Google Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lancelot, Claude, Arnauld, Antoine, Nugent, Thomas, and Alston, R. C.. 1660. Grammaire générale et raisonnée.

Landman, Fred. 2000. Events and plurality. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1995. Raising and transparency. Language 71: 1–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow, Michael and Kemmer, Suzanne, eds., Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1–63.Google Scholar

Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levelt, Willem J. M. 1993. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Levelt, Willem J. M. and Kelter, Stephanie. 1982. Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive Psychology 14: 78–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Minimization and conversational inference. In Jef, Verschueren and Marcella, Bertuccelli-Papi, eds., The pragmatic perspective (Pragmatics and Beyond Companion Series 5). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 61–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1991. Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27: 107–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1995. Three levels of meaning. In Palmer, F. R., ed., Grammar and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 90–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 2000a. Maxim. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9: 144–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 2000b. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, David, K. 1968. Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, David, K. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. In Rainer, Bäuerle, Urs, Egli, and Arnim, Stechow, eds., Semantics from different points of view (Springer Series in Language and Communication 6). New York: Springer-Verlag, 172–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Li, Charles, N. 1975. Synchrony vs. diachrony in language structure. Language 51: 873–886.Google Scholar

Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1974. An explanation of word order change SVO → SOV. Foundations of Language 12: 201–214.Google Scholar

Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A..1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Liberman, Mark. 1973. Alternatives. In Chicago Linguistic Society 9. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 346–355.Google Scholar

Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1991. Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language 67: 475–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lord, Carol. 1976. Evidence for syntactic reanalysis: From verb to complementizer in Kwa. In Steever, Sanford B., Walker, Carol A., Mufwene, Salikoko S., and Ebert, Robert Peter, eds., Chicago Linguistic Society 12: Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 179–191.Google Scholar

Lord, Carol and Dahlgren, Kathleen. 1997. Participant and event anaphora in newspaper articles. In Joan, Bybee, John, Haiman, and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., Essays on language function and language type dedicated to T. Givón. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 323–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lordrup, Helge. 1999. Inalienables in Norwegian and binding theory. Linguistics 37: 365–388.Google Scholar

Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lyutikova, Ekaterina A. 2000. Reflexives and emphasis in Tsaxur (Nakh-Dagestanian). In Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and Curl, Traci S., eds., Reflexives: Forms and functions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 227–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacDonald, Maryellen C. 1993. The interaction of lexical and syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language 32: 692–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacDonald, Maryellen C. 1999. Distributional information in language comprehension, production and acquisition: Three puzzles and a moral. In Brian, MacWhinney, ed., The emergence of language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 177–196.Google Scholar

Macmillan, . 2002. Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners. Oxford: Macmillan.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, Brian. 2000. Connectionism and language learning. In Barlow, Michael and Suzanne, Kemmer, eds., Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 121–149.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, Brian. 2001. Emergentist approaches to language. In Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul J., eds., Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Typological Studies in Language 45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 449–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacWhinney, Brian and Bates, Elizabeth. 1989. The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Magliano, Joseph P., Baggett, W. B., Johnson, B. K., and Graesser, C. Arthur. 1993. The time course of generating causal antecedent and causal consequence inferences. Discourse Processes 16: 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maling, Joan. 1984. Non-clause bounded reflexives in Icelandic. Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 211–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mandelkern, Solomon. 1937. Veteris Testamenti concordantiae (A concordance of the Old Testament). Jerusalem: Shocken.Google Scholar

Mann, William C. and Sandra, A. Thompson. 1986. Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes 9: 57–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Manning, Christopher D. 2003. Probabilistic syntax. In Rens, Bod, Jennifer, Hay, and Stefanie, Jannedy, eds., Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 289–341.Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec P. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 10). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Matsuki, Keiko. 1995. Metaphors of anger in Japanese. In Maclaury, Robert E. and Taylor, John R., eds., Language and the cognitive construal of the world. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 137–152.Google Scholar

McClelland, James L. and Rumelhart, David E.. 1986. Parallel distributed processing, vols. 1 and 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Meibauer, Jorg. 2005. Lying and falsely implicating. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1373–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meltzer, Yoram. 2005. Xavlaz ze lo mila (“A waste of time doesn't capture it”). Haaretz, May 6, 2005 (in Hebrew).

Michod, Richard E. 1999. Darwinian dynamics: Evolutionary transitions in fitness and individuality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Miller, Carolyn R. 1984. Genre as social action. The Quarterly Journal of Speech 70: 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley. 1985. Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics 21: 339–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60: 847–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 1988. The grammaticization of coordination. In Haiman, John and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 331–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 1989. Historical linguistics and linguistic theory: Reducing the arbitrary and constraining explanation. In Berkeley Linguistics Society 15. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 391–408.Google Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 1991a. Active/agent case marking and its motivations. Language 67: 510–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 1991b. The role of motivation in the emergence of grammatical categories: The grammaticization of subjects. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd, eds., Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 2: Focus on types of grammatical markers (Typological Studies in Language 19:2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 159–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 2003. Functional perspectives on syntactic change. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D., eds., The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 552–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mithun, Marianne.in press. Borrowed rhetorical constructions as starting points for grammaticalization. In Bergs, Alexander and Diewald, Gabriele, eds., Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Moore, John and Polinsky, Maria. 2003. Explanations in linguistics. In Moore, John and Polinsky, Maria, eds., The nature of explanation in linguistic theory. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1–30.Google Scholar

Morgan, Jerry L. 1978. Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Cole, Peter, ed., Syntax and semantics, vol. 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 261–280.Google Scholar

Moscati, Sabatino, Spitaler, Anton, Ullendorff, Edward, and Soden, Wolfram. 1964. An introduction to the comparative grammar of the Semitic languages. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar

Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2001. The ecology of language evolution (Cambridge Approaches to Language Contact). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Myhill, John. 1997. Should and ought: the rise of individually oriented modality in American English. English Language and Linguistics 1: 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newman, John and Rice, Sally. 2004. Patterns of usage for English sit, stand, and lie: A cognitively inspired exploration in corpus linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics 15: 351–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newmeyer, Frederick. 1991. Iconicity and generative grammar. Language 68: 756–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nicolle, Steve and Clark, Billy. 1999. Experimental pragmatics and what is said: A response to Gibbs and Moise. Cognition 69: 337–354.Google ScholarPubMed

Noordman, Leo G. M. and Vonk, Wietzke. 1998. Memory-based processing in understanding causal information. Discourse Processes 26: 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Noveck, Ira A. 2001. When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78: 165–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Noveck, Ira A. and Posada, Andres. 2003. Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language 85: 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Noveck, Ira A. and Chevaux, Florelle. 2002. The pragmatic development of and. In Skarabela, Barbora, ed., Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 453–463.Google Scholar

Nuyts, Jan. 1992. Aspects of a cognitive-pragmatic theory of language: On cognition, functionalism, and grammar (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ochs, Elinor. 1996. Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In Gumperz, John J. and Levinson, Stephen C., eds., Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 407–437.Google Scholar

Onifer, William and Swinney, David A.. 1981. Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory and Cognition 9: 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Papafragou, Anna and Musolino, Julien. 2003. Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognition 86: 253–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Papafragou, Anna and Schwarz, Naomi. 2005/6. “Most wanted.” Language Acquisition, special issue: The acquisition of quantification, 13: 207–251.Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1932/1965. The icon, index and symbol. In Hartshorne, Charles and Weiss, Paul, eds., Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 156–173.Google Scholar

Perry, John. 1993. The problem of the essential indexical and other essays. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul J., eds., Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Typological Studies in Language 45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 137–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar