[Aijmer, K., 2004. The interface between perception, evidentiality and discourse particle use – using a translation corpus to study the polysemy of see. TRADTERM – Journal of the Interdepartmental Centre for Translation and Terminology of the FFLCH/USP, vol. 10, pp. 249–277.10.11606/issn.2317-9511.tradterm.2004.47179]Search in Google Scholar
[Algeo, J., 2006. British or American English? A handbook of word and grammar patterns. (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511607240]Search in Google Scholar
[Blakemore, D., 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.]Search in Google Scholar
[du Bois, J.W., 2007. The stance triangle. In: R. Englebretson, ed. Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 139–182.10.1075/pbns.164.07du]Search in Google Scholar
[Bolinger, D., 1978. Yes-no questions are not alternative questions. In: H. Hiz, ed. Questions. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 87–105.10.1007/978-94-009-9509-3_3]Search in Google Scholar
[Bongelli, R., Riccioni, I., Vincze, L. and Zuczkowski, A., 2018. Questions and epistemic stance: Some examples from Italian conversations. Ampersand, vol. 5, pp. 29–44.10.1016/j.amper.2018.11.001]Search in Google Scholar
[Brinton, L., 2008. The comment clause in English. Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511551789]Search in Google Scholar
[Brown, P. and Levinson, S., 1987 [1978]. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085]Search in Google Scholar
[Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K., 2005. Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, vol. 7, no. 4–5, pp. 585–614.10.1177/1461445605054407]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Coleman, H.O., 1974. Intonation and emphasis. Miscellanea Phonetica, vol. 1, pp. 11–22.]Search in Google Scholar
[Erman, B., 1987. Pragmatic expressions in English: A study of you know, you see and I mean in face-to-face conversation. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.]Search in Google Scholar
[Fitzmaurice, S., 2004. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the historical construction of interlocutor stance: From stance markers to discourse markers. Discourse Studies, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 427–448.10.1177/1461445604046585]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Hale, S., 1999. Interpreters’ treatment of discourse markers in courtroom questions. Forensic Linguistics, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 57–82.10.1558/sll.1999.6.1.57]Search in Google Scholar
[Heritage, J., 2010. Questioning in medicine. In: A. Freed and S. Ehrlich, eds. “Why do you ask?”: The function of questions in institutional discourse. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 42–68.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., 2002. MIND-AS-BODY as a cross-linguistic conceptual metaphor. Miscelánea. A Journal of English and American Studies, vol. 25, pp. 93–119.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., 2008. Vision metaphors for the intellect: Are they really cross-linguistic? Atlantis. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 15–33.]Search in Google Scholar
[Innes, B., 2010. “Well, that’s why I asked the question sir”: Well as a discourse marker in court. Language in Society, vol. 39, pp. 95–117.10.1017/S0047404509990662]Search in Google Scholar
[McCarthy, M., 1994. What should we teach about the spoken language? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 104–120.10.1075/aral.17.2.05mcc]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Panther, K-U. and Thornburg, L., 1999. The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In: K-U. Panther and G. Radden, eds. Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 333–357.10.1075/hcp.4.19pan]Search in Google Scholar
[Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J., 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ranger, R., 2010. You see! Lexis. Journal in English Lexicology. Theoretical Approaches to Linguistic (Im)politeness, HS2, pp. 111–130.10.4000/lexis.840]Search in Google Scholar
[San Roque, L., Kendrick, K.H., Norcliffe, E., Brown, P., Defina, R., Dingemanse, M., Dirksmeyer, T., Enfield, NJ., Floyd, S., Hammond, J., Rossi, G., Tufvesson, S., van Putten, S. and Majid, A., 2015. Vision verbs dominate in conversation across cultures, but the ranking of non-visual verbs varies. Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 31–60.10.1515/cog-2014-0089]Search in Google Scholar
[San Roque, L., Kendrick, K.H., Norcliffe, E., and Majid, A., 2018. Universal meaning extensions of perception verbs are grounded in interaction. Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 371–406.10.1515/cog-2017-0034]Search in Google Scholar
[Scheibman, J., 2002. Point of view and grammar. Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.11]Search in Google Scholar
[Scott, M., 2012. WordSmith Tools (version 6), Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.]Search in Google Scholar
[Sinclair, J., 1987. Collocation: A progress report. In: R. Steele and T. Threadgold, eds. Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 319–331.10.1075/z.lt1.66sin]Search in Google Scholar
[Stenström, A-B., 1995. Some remarks on comment clauses. In: B. Aarts and Ch.F. Meyer, eds. The verb in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 290–302.]Search in Google Scholar
[Sweetser, E., 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620904]Search in Google Scholar
[Szczyrbak, M., 2016. Say and stancetaking in courtroom talk: A corpus-assisted study. Corpora, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 143–168.10.3366/cor.2016.0090]Search in Google Scholar
[Szczyrbak, M., 2018a. Diminutivity and evaluation in courtroom interaction: Patterns with little (Part 1). Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, no. 135, pp. 59–68.10.4467/20834624SL.18.005.8165]Search in Google Scholar
[Szczyrbak, M., 2018b. Diminutivity and evaluation in courtroom interaction: Patterns with little (Part 2). Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, no. 135, pp. 69–79.10.4467/20834624SL.18.006.8166]Search in Google Scholar