Discourse Markers as Turn-Transition Devices: Evidence From Speech and Instant Messaging

References

• Aijmer, K., & Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (2004). A model and methodology for the study of pragmatic markers: the semantic field of expectation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1781–1805.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. F., Beard, F. K., & Walther, J. B. (2010). Turn-taking and the local management of conversation in a highly simultaneous computer-mediated communication system. Language@Internet, 7, article 7. Retrieved from http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2010/2804.
   Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package = lme4.
   Google Scholar
• Baron, N. S. (1998). Letters by phone or speech by other means: The linguistics of email. Language and Communication, 18, 133–170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron, N. S. (2004). See you online: gender issues in college student use of Instant Messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 397–423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron, N. S. (2005). The written turn. English Language and Linguistics, 9, 359–376.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron, N. S. (2010). Discourse structures in instant messaging: The case of utterance breaks. Language@Internet, 7, article 4. Retrieved from http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2010/2651.
   Google Scholar
• Barth-Weingarten, D., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2002). On the development of final though: A case of grammaticalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 345–361). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Beeching, K., & Detges, U. (Eds.). (2014a). Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Beeching, K., & Detges, U. (2014b). Introduction. In K. Beeching & U. Detges (Eds.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change (pp. 1–23). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Bergen, G., van, van Gijn, R., Hogeweg, L., & Lestrade, S. (2011). Discourse marking and the subtle art of mind-reading: the case of Dutch eigenlijk. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3877–3892.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergen, G., van, Foolen, A., & Stoop, W. (2010, November). Dutch dan in discourse. Paper presented at 8th Semantics in the Netherlands Day (SiN VIII), 5 November 2010, Nijmegan, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Berglund, T. O. (2009). Disrupted turn adjacency and coherence maintenance in instant messaging conversations. Language@Internet, 6, article 2. Retrieved from http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2009/2106.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D. (1991). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Breban, T. (2010). English adjectives of comparison: Lexical and grammatical uses. Topics in English Linguistics Series (Vol. 36). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Brems, L., Ghesquière, L., & van de Velde, F. (Eds.). (2012). Intersections of intersubjectivity [Special Issue].. English Text Construction (Vol. 5, pp. 1–152)
   Google Scholar
• Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Brinton, L. J. (2006). Pathways in the development of pragmatic markers in English. In A. van Kemenade & B. Los (Eds.), The handbook of the history of English (pp. 307–334). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Carlier, A., & De Mulder, W. (2010). The emergence of the definite article in Late Latin: ille in competition with ipse. In H. Cuykens, K. Davidse, & L. Vandelanotte (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 241–275). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Chafe, W., & Danielewicz, J. (1987). Properties of spoken and written language. In R. Horrowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 83–113). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chafe, W., & Tannen, D. (1987). The relation between written and spoken language. Annual Review Anthropology, 16, 383–407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cherny, L. (1999). Conversation and community: Chat in a virtual world. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Condon, S., & Čech, C. (2001). Profiling turns in interaction: Discourse structure and function. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii, January 3–6, 2001. Retrieved from http://www.hicss.hawaii.edu/HICSS_34/PDFs/DDPTC04.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Condon, S., & Čech, C. (2007). OK, next one: Discourse markers of common ground. In A. Fetzer & K. Fischer (Eds.), Lexical markers of common ground (pp. 17–45). New York, NY: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Condon, S., & Čech, C. (2010). Discourse management in three modalities. Language@Internet, 7, article 6. Retrieved from http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2010/2770.
   Google Scholar
• Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: an evolutionary approach. Essex, UK: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Degand, L. (2011a). Connectieven in de rechterperiferie. Een contrastieve analyse van dus en donc in gesproken taal. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 16, 333–348.
   Google Scholar
• Degand, L. (2011b). Plaats en functie hangen samen dus. De vraag is hoe? Nederlandse Taalkunde, 16, 352–357.
   Google Scholar
• Degand, L. (2014). “So very fast very fast then”: Discourse markers at left and right periphery in spoken French. In K. Beeching & U. Detges (Eds.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change (pp. 151–178). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Degand, L., Cornillie, B., & Pietrandrea, P. (2013). Discourse markers and modal particles: two sides of the same coin? In L. Degand, B. Cornillie, & P. Pietrandrea (Eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles. Categorization and description (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Degand, L., & Fagard, B. (2011). Alors between discourse and grammar. The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language, 18, 29–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degand, L., & Fagard, B. (2012). Competing connectives in the causal domain. French car and parce que. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 154–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diessel, H. (2005). Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics, 43, 449–470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London, UK: Cassell.
   Google Scholar
• Evers-Vermeul, J. (2005). The development of Dutch connectives. Change and acquisition as windows on form-function relations. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
   Google Scholar
• Evers-Vermeul, J. (2010). ‘Dus’ vooraan of in het midden? Over vorm-functierelaties in het gebruik van connectieven. Nederlandse taalkunde, 15, 149–175.
   Google Scholar
• Fetzer, A. (2004). Recontextualizing context: Grammatically meets appropriateness. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, K. (2000a). From cognitive semantics to lexical pragmatics: The functional polysemy of discourse particles. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, K. (2000b). Discourse particles, turn-taking, and the semantics-pragmatics interface. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique, 8, 111–137.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, K. (Ed.). (2006). Approaches to discourse particles, studies in pragmatics (Vol. 1). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, C., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar. Studies in interactional sociolinguistics (Vol. 13, pp. 134–184). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Garcia, A., & Jacobs, J. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer mediated communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 337–367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancock, J. T., & Dunham, P. J. (2001). Language use in computer-mediated communication: The role of coordination devices. Discourse Processes, 3, 91–110.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, M. M. (1997). Alors and donc in spoken French: A reanalysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 153–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haselow, A. (2011). Discourse marker and modal particle: The functions of utterance-final then in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3603–3623.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haselow, A. (2012). Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language and Communication, 32, 182–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haugh, M. (2008). Utterance-final conjunctive particles and implicatures in Japanese conversation. Pragmatics, 18, 425–451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional coherence in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4.
   Google Scholar
• Herring, S. C. (2010). Computer-mediated conversation: Introduction and overview. Language@Internet, 7, article 2. Retrieved from http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2010/2801.
   Google Scholar
• Hogeweg, L., Ramachers, S., & Wottrich, V. (2011). Doch, toch and wel on the table. In R. Nouwen & M. Elenbaas (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2011 (pp. 50–60). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35, 441–456.
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F. (2011). Corpus-based research on language production: Information density and reducible subject relatives. In E. M. Benders & J. E. Arnold (Eds.), Language from a cognitive perspective: Grammar, usage, and processing. Studies in honor of Tom Wasow (pp. 161–197). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, G. M., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2009). Enquoting voices, accomplishing talk: Uses of be + like in Instant Messaging. Language & Communication, 29, 77–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, M. J., & Jahnke, N. (2011). The meaning of utterance-final even. Journal of English Linguistics, 39, 36–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirsner, R. S., & van Heuven, V. J. (1996). Boundary tones and the semantics of the Dutch final particles hè, hoor, zeg, and joh. In C. Cremers & M. den Dikken (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996 (pp. 133–146). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Koch, P., & Oesterreicher, W. (2001). Langage parlé et langage écrit. In G. Holtus, M. Metzeltin, & C. Schmitt (Eds.), Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik (pp. 584–627). Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.
   Google Scholar
• Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2014). lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0-20. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package = lmerTest.
   Google Scholar
• Lenk, U. (1998). Marking discourse coherence: Functions of discourse markers in spoken English. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Lestrade, S., & van Bergen, G. (2011, February). Investigating language change online. Presented at the Taalkunde in Nederland-dag [Linguistics in the Netherlands-day], February 5, 2011, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• MacKiewicz, J., & Lam, C. (2009). Coherence in workplace instant messages. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 39, 417–431.
   Google Scholar
• McGloin, N., & Konishi, Y. (2010). From connective particle to sentence-final particle: a usage based analysis of shi ‘and’ in Japanese. Language Sciences, 32, 507–588.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortier, L., & Degand, L. (2009). Adversative discourse markers in contrast: The need for a combined corpus approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14, 338–366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulder, J., & Thompson, S. A. (2008). The grammaticalization of but as a final particle in English conversation. In R. Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining (pp. 179–204). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Nash, C. (2005). Retrieved from http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/HICSS.2005.143 Cohesion and reference in English chatroom discourse. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences—Track 4.
   Google Scholar
• O'Neill, J., & Martin, D. (2003). Text chat in action. In M. Pendergast, K. Schmidt, C. Simone, & M. Tremaine (Eds.), GROUP′03. Proceedings of the Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 40–49). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Pander Maat, H., & Degand, L. (2001). Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 211–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pander Maat, H., & Sanders, T. (2000). Domains of use or subjectivity: the distribution of three Dutch causal connectives explained. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & E. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, and contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 57–82). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Randall, N. (2002). Lingo online: A report on the language of the keyboard generation. Department of English, University of Waterloo and msn.ca. Retrieved from http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/∼nrandall/LingoOnline-finalreport.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, C., & Street, B. (1998). Spoken and written language. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 168–186). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saigo, H. (2011). The Japanese sentence-final particles in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn-organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1993). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.
   Google Scholar
• Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 107, 227–265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selting, M. (2001). Fragments of units as deviant cases of unit-production in conversational talk. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 229–258). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Selting, M. (2000). The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society, 29, 477–517.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson, J. (2005). Conversational floors in synchronous text-based CMC discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 337–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spooren, W. P. M. S., & Degand, L. (2010). Coding coherence relations: Reliability and validity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6, 241–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., … Levinson, S. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 10587–10592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strauss, S., & Xiang, X. (2009). Discourse particles: Where cognition and interaction intersect—The case of final particle ey in Shishan dialect (Hainan Island, P.R. China). Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1287–1312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taboada, M. (2006). Spontaneous and non-spontaneous turn-taking. Pragmatics, 16, 329–360.
   Google Scholar
• Tagliamonte, S. A., & Denis, D. (2008). Linguistic ruin? LOL! Instant messaging and teen language. American Speech, 83, 3–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Traugott, E. C. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 29–71). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Tudini, V. (2014). Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1456/full Conversation analysis of computer-mediated interactions. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Uygur-Distexhe, D. (2012). Lol, mdr and ptdr. An inclusive and gradual approach to discourse markers. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 35, 389–413.
   Google Scholar
• Varnhagen, C. K., McFall, G. P., Pugh, N., Routledge, L., Sumida-MacDonald, H., & Kwong, T. E. (2010). Lol: New language and spelling in instant messaging. Reading and Writing, 23, 719–733.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Virtanen, T. (2004). Point of departure: Cognitive aspects of sentence-initial adverbials. In T. Virtanen (Ed.), Approaches to cognition through text and discourse (pp. 79–97). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Watts, R. (1988). A relevance-theoretic approach to commentary pragmatic markers: The case of actually, really and basically. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 38, 235–260.
   Google Scholar
• Wennerstrom, A., & Siegel, A. F. (2003). Keeping the floor in multiparty conversations: Intonation, syntax, and pause. Discourse Processes, 36, 77–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yap, F. H., Wang, J., & Lam, T. C. (2010). Clausal integration and the emergence of mitigative and adhortative sentence-final particles in Chinese. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 8, 63–86.
   Google Scholar