References
- Anderson, Stephen R. 1971. On the linguistic status of the performative/constative distinction. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
- Avis, Walter. S. 1972. So eh? is Canadian, eh. Canadian journal of linguistics 17(2). 89–104.
- Bach, Kent & Robert Harnish. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
- Bartels Christine. 1999. The intonation of English statements and questions. New York: Garland Publishing.
- Beyssade, Claire & Jean-Marie Marandin. 2006. The speech act assignment problem revisited: Disentangling speaker’s commitment from speaker’s call on addressee. In Selected Papers of CSSP 2005, 37–68. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss6/index_en.html.
- Burton, Strang & Lisa Matthewson. 2015. Targeted construction storyboards in semantic fieldwork. In Ryan Bochnak & Lisa Matthewson (eds.), Methodologies in semantic fieldwork. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Casselman, Bill. 2015. The true story of a Canadian interjection eh?http://www.billcasselman.com/casselmania/mania_eh.htm.
- Columbus, Georgie. 2010. A comparative analysis of invariant tags in three varieties of English. English World-Wide 31(3). 288–310.
- Denis, Derek 2015. The development of pragmatic markers in Canadian English. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.
- Denis, Derek, Martina Wiltschko & Alex d’Arcy. 2016. Deconstructed multi-functionality: Confirmational variation in Canadian English through time. Talk presented at DiPVaC3, University of Ottawa. May.
- Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1984. On the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Varieties of formal semantics 3. 143–170.
- Gunlogson, Christine. 2013. True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. New York: Routledge.
- Haegeman, Liliane & Virginia Hill. 2013. The syntactization of discourse. In Raffaella Folli, Christina Sevdali & Robert Truswell (eds.), Syntax and its limits, 370–390. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of language. 41–53.
- Hill, Virginia. 2013. Vocatives: How syntax meets with pragmatics. Leiden: Brill.
- Johnson, Marion. 1976. Canadian eh. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 21. 153–160.
- Kaiser, Sebastian & Stefan Baumann. 2013. Satzmodus und die Diskurspartikel hm: Intonation und interpretation. Linguistische Berichte 236. 473–496.
- Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and philosophy 1(1). 3–44.
- Kayne, Richard. 2016. The silence of heads. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 37(1). 1–37
- Krifka, Manfred. 2013. Response particles as propositional anaphors. In Todd Snider (ed.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 23, 1–18. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.
- Lam, Zoe Wai-Man. 2014. A complex forceP for speaker- and addressee-oriented discourse particles in Cantonese. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 35(2). 61–80.
- Leung, Wai Mun. 2008. Promising approaches for the analysis of sentence-final particles in Cantonese. Asian Social Science 4(5). 74–82.
- Malamud, Sophia A. & Tamina C. Stephenson. Three ways to avoid commitments: Declarative force modifiers in the conversational scoreboard. Journal of Semantics 31. 1–37.
- Pierrehumbert, Janet & Julia Hirschberg. 1990. The Meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan & Martha E. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in communication, 271–311. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
- Ross, John R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 222–272. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn & Co.
- Sadock, Jerrold M. 1974. Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts. New York: Academic Press.
- Sadock, Jerrold M. & Arnold M. Zwicky. 1985. Sentence types. In Timothy Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Volume 1, Clause structure, 155–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Speas, Peggy & Carol Tenny. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Anne-Marie Di Sciullo (ed.), Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 1, Syntax and semantics, 315–343. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Spanning. Ms., University of Tromsø. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/001501.
- Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5). 701–721.
- Sybesma, Rint & Boya Li. 2007. The dissection and structural mapping of Cantonese sentence final particles. Lingua 117(10). 1739–1783.
- Tang, Sze-Wing. 2015. Cartographic syntax of pragmatic projections. In Audrey Li, Andrew Simpson & Wei-tien Dylan Tsai (eds.), Chinese Syntax in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 429–441. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
- Thoma, Sonja. 2016. Discourse particles and the syntax of discourse. Evidence from Miesbach Bavarian. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.
- Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2012. Semantics of intonation. In Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics. An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
- Wakefield, John. 2010. The English equivalents of Cantonese sentence-final particles: A contrastive analysis. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University dissertation.
- Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. The universal structure of categories: Towards a formal typology. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
- Wiltschko, Martina. To appear. Ergative constellations in the structure of speech acts. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa deMena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Wiltschko, Martina & Johannes Heim. To appear. The syntax of sentence peripheral discourse markers. Towards a neo-performative analysis.
- Williams, Edwin. 2003. Representation theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
- Wu, Wing-Li. 2008. An acoustic phonetic study of the intonation of sentence-final particles in Hong Kong Cantonese. Asian Social Science 4(2). 23–29.
- Zhang, Ling. 2014. Segmentless sentence-final particles in Cantonese: An experimental study. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 35(2). 47–60.