[Anderson, Stephen R. 1971. On the linguistic status of the performative/constative distinction. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.]Search in Google Scholar
[Avis, Walter. S. 1972. So eh? is Canadian, eh. Canadian journal of linguistics 17(2). 89–104.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bach, Kent & Robert Harnish. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bartels Christine. 1999. The intonation of English statements and questions. New York: Garland Publishing.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190212339.003.0006]Search in Google Scholar
[Casselman, Bill. 2015. The true story of a Canadian interjection eh?http://www.billcasselman.com/casselmania/mania_eh.htm.]Search in Google Scholar
[Columbus, Georgie. 2010. A comparative analysis of invariant tags in three varieties of English. English World-Wide 31(3). 288–310.10.1075/eww.31.3.03col]Search in Google Scholar
[Denis, Derek 2015. The development of pragmatic markers in Canadian English. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1984. On the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Varieties of formal semantics 3. 143–170.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gunlogson, Christine. 2013. True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. New York: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199683239.003.0018]Search in Google Scholar
[Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of language. 41–53.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hill, Virginia. 2013. Vocatives: How syntax meets with pragmatics. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004261389]Search in Google Scholar
[Johnson, Marion. 1976. Canadian eh. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 21. 153–160.]Search in Google Scholar
[Kaiser, Sebastian & Stefan Baumann. 2013. Satzmodus und die Diskurspartikel hm: Intonation und interpretation. Linguistische Berichte 236. 473–496.]Search in Google Scholar
[Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and philosophy 1(1). 3–44.10.1007/BF00351935]Search in Google Scholar
[Kayne, Richard. 2016. The silence of heads. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 37(1). 1–3710.1515/scl-2016-0001]Search in Google Scholar
[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.10.3765/salt.v23i0.2676]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[Leung, Wai Mun. 2008. Promising approaches for the analysis of sentence-final particles in Cantonese. Asian Social Science 4(5). 74–82.10.5539/ass.v4n5p74]Search in Google Scholar
[Malamud, Sophia A. & Tamina C. Stephenson. Three ways to avoid commitments: Declarative force modifiers in the conversational scoreboard. Journal of Semantics 31. 1–37.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[Sadock, Jerrold M. 1974. Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts. New York: Academic Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.10.1075/la.57.15spe]Search in Google Scholar
[Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Spanning. Ms., University of Tromsø. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/001501.]Search in Google Scholar
[Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5). 701–721.10.1023/A:1020867916902]Search in Google Scholar
[Sybesma, Rint & Boya Li. 2007. The dissection and structural mapping of Cantonese sentence final particles. Lingua 117(10). 1739–1783.10.1016/j.lingua.2006.10.003]Search in Google Scholar
[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.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199945658.003.0016]Search in Google Scholar
[Thoma, Sonja. 2016. Discourse particles and the syntax of discourse. Evidence from Miesbach Bavarian. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[Wakefield, John. 2010. The English equivalents of Cantonese sentence-final particles: A contrastive analysis. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University dissertation.]Search in Google Scholar
[Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. The universal structure of categories: Towards a formal typology. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139833899]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[Wiltschko, Martina & Johannes Heim. To appear. The syntax of sentence peripheral discourse markers. Towards a neo-performative analysis.]Search in Google Scholar
[Williams, Edwin. 2003. Representation theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Wu, Wing-Li. 2008. An acoustic phonetic study of the intonation of sentence-final particles in Hong Kong Cantonese. Asian Social Science 4(2). 23–29.10.5539/ass.v4n2p23]Search in Google Scholar
[Zhang, Ling. 2014. Segmentless sentence-final particles in Cantonese: An experimental study. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 35(2). 47–60.]Search in Google Scholar