Complementation as interpersonal grammar

REFERENCES

• Barnard, Alan. 2000. History and theory in anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boeder, Winfried. 2002. “Speech and thought representation in the Kartvelian (South Caucasian) languages.” Reported discourse: a meeting ground for different linguistic domains. Eds. Tom Güldemann and Manfred von Roncador. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. 3–48.
   Google Scholar
• Bolkestein, A. Machtelt. 1990. “Sentential complements in functional grammar: embedded predications, propositions, utterances in Latin.” Layers and levels of representation in language theory: functional view. Eds. Jan Nuyts, Machtelt A. Bolkestein, and Co Vet. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. 71–100.
   Google Scholar
• Bresnan, Joan W. 1979. Theory of complementation in English syntax. New York and London: Garland.
   Google Scholar
• Bybee, Joan. 2003. “Cognitive processes in grammaticalization.” The new psychology of language: cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Volume 2. Ed. Michael Tomasello. Mahwah NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pp. 145–167.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, Herbert H. and Gerrig, R. 1990. “Quotations as demonstrations.” Language 66: 764–805.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corris, Peter. 2003. Master's mates. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Davidse, Kristin. 1994. “Fact projection.” Perspectives on English. Studies in Honour of Professor Emma Vorlat. Eds. Keith Carlon, Kristin Davidse, and Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn. Leuven: Peeters. Pp. 257–284.
   Google Scholar
• Diessel, Holger, and Michael Tomasello. 2001. “The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: a corpus-based analysis.” Cognitive Linguistics 12: 97–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of functional grammar. Part 2: Complex and derived constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Givón, Talmy. 1980. “The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements.” Studies in Language 4: 333–377.
   Google Scholar
• Haegeman, Lillian. 1991. Introduction to government and binding theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael A.K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Hudson, Richard and Van Langendonck, Willy. 1991. “Word grammar.” Linguistic theory and grammatical description. Eds. Filip G. Droste and John E. Joseph. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp.307–335.
   Google Scholar
• Ifantidou, Elly. 2001. Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Li, Charles. 1986. “Direct and indirect speech: a functional study.” Direct and indirect speech. Ed. Florian Coulmas. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 29–45.
   Google Scholar
• McGregor, William B. 1994. “The grammar of reported speech and thought in Gooniyandi.” Australian Journal of Linguistics 14: 63–92.
   Google Scholar
• McGregor, William B.. 1997. Semiotic grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• McGregor, William B. 2000. Causatives in languages of north-west Australia. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• McGregor, William B. 2003. “A fundamental misconception of modern linguistics.” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 35: 39–64.
   Google Scholar
• Noonan, Michael. 1985. “Complementation.” Language typology and syntactic description. Volume II: Complex constructions. Ed. Timothy Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 42–140.
   Google Scholar
• Reinhart, Tanya. 1975. “Whose main clause? (Point of view in sentences with parentheticals).” Harvard studies of syntax and semantics: volume 1. Ed. Susumu Kuno. Cambridge MA: Department of Linguistics, Harvard University. Pp. 127–171.
   Google Scholar
• Roeck de, Marijke. 1994. “A functional typology of speech reports.” Function and expression in Functional Grammar. Eds. Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen, L. Falster Jakobsen, and L. Schack Rasmussen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 331–351.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P. 1967. The grammar of English complement constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rumsey, Alan L. 1982. An intra-sentence grammar of Ungarinjin, North-western Australia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2000. Disclaiming indirect speech and thought: a missing link in speech and thought representation. Paper presented to conference Exploring Interpersonal Grammar, Catholic University of Leuven.
   Google Scholar
• Vandelanotte, Lieven 2004a. “Deixis and grounding in speech and thought representation.” Journal of Pragmatics 36: 489–520.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandelanotte, Lieven 2004b. “From representational to scopal ‘distancing indirect speech or thought’: a cline of subjectification. Text 24: 547–585.
   Google Scholar
• Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar