[
Aijmer, Karin. (2002). English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Aijmer, Karin & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. (2003). “Well”. Linguistics, 41(6), 1123-1161.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Allwood, Jens et al. (1992). On the Semantics and Pragmatics of Linguistic Feedback. Journal of Semantics, 9(1), 1-26.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ambrazas, Vytautas. (1997). Lithuanian grammar. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ambrazas, V. (2006). Lietuvių kalbos istorinė sintaksė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ambrazas, Vytautas, red. (2006). Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Angles, J. et al. (2000). Japanese responses hai, ee, and un: yes, no, and beyond. Language and communication, 20, 55-86.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Auer, Peter & Yael Maschler. eds. (2016). NU/NÅ– A Family of Discourse Markers Across the Languages of Europe and Beyond. Berlin & Boston: Mouton De Gruyter.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bayer, Josef & Volker Struckmeier. (2017). Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to their Syntax and Semantics. Berlin&Boston: De Gruyter.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bolden, G. B. (2018). “Nu-prefaced responses in Russian conversation”. In Between turn and sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages edited by J. Heritage and M.-L. Sorjonen (pp. 23-58). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fraenkel, E. (1962-1965). Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Band 1-2. Heidelberg & Göttingen: C. Winter.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Grosz, P. G. (2016). “Information structure and discourse particles”. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure edited by C. Féry & S. Ishihara (pp. 336-358). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Haselow, A. (2012). Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language & Communication, 32, 182-204.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Heritage, John. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis edited by J. Maxwell Atkinson, John Heritage, eds. (pp. 299-345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Heritage, John. (2018). Nu-prefaced responses in Russian conversation. In Between turn and sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages edited by J. Heritage and M.-L. Sorjonen (pp. 155-189). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Heritage, John & Marja-Leena Sorjonen. (2018). Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-initial Particles across Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Holmberg, Anders. (2016). The Syntax of Yes and No. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Jasionytė-Mikučionienė, Erika. (2019). Subordinating conjunctions as discourse markers in Lithuanian. Corpus Pragmatics: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, 3(4), 285-301.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Jefferson, Gail. (1984). Notes on a Systematic Deployment of the Acknowledgement Tokens “Yeah” and “Mm hm”. Papers in Linguistics, 17 (1-4), 197-216.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
König, Ekkerhard. (1991). The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
König, Ekkerhard & Peter Siemund. (2007). Speech act distinctions in grammar. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description edited by T. Shopen (pp. 276-324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lenker, Ursula. (2010). Argument and Rhetoric. Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin: De Gruyter.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
LG II 1971 – Ulvydas, Kazys, red. (1971). Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. II tomas. Morfologija (vaiksmažodis, prieveiksmis, dalelytė, prielinksnis, jungtukas, jaustukas, ištiktukas). Vilnius: Mintis.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Metslang, Helle, Külli Habicht & Karl Pajusalu. (2011). Developmental paths of interrogative particles: The case of Estonian. Folia Linguistica Historica, 45 (32), 149-187.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nau, Nicole & Norbert Ostrowski. (2010). Background and perspectives for the study of particles and connectives in Baltic languages. In Particles and Connectives in Baltic edited by N. Nicole & N. Ostrowski (pp. 1-37). Vilnius: Vilniaus Universitetas & Asociacija “Academia Salensis”.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Oreström, Bengt. (1983). Turn-taking in English conversation. Lund studies in English, 66, Lund: Gleerup.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Panov, Vladimir. (2019). Juk and gi, and ‘particles’ in contemporary Lithuanian: Explaining language-particular elements in a cross-linguistic context. Kalbotyra, 72, 58-86.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Panov, Vladimir. (2023). Toward a non-aprioristic approach to discourse-associated devices. In Discourse Phenomena in Typological Perspective edited by A. Barotto & S. Mattiola (pp.13-34). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Petit, Daniel. (2010). On presentative particles in the Baltic languages. In Particles and Connectives in Baltic edited by N. Nicole & N. Ostrowski (pp. 151-170). Vilnius: Vilniaus Universitetas & Asociacija “Academia Salensis”.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Roelofsen, Floris & Donka Farkas. (2015). Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions. Language, 91(2), 359-414.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ruskan, Aanna. (2019). Functional variation of discourse particles in Lithuanian: A look at clause Peripheries. Corpus Pragmatics: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, 3(4), 303-325.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sacks, Harvey. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Volume 2. Oxford: Blackwells.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sawicki, Lea. (2012). Responsive discourse particles in Lithuanian dialog. Baltic Linguistics, 3. 151-175.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Schiffrin, Deborah. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Siemund, Peter. (2001). Interrogative constructions. In Language Typology and Language Universals edited by M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (pp. 1010-1028). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter..
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Smoczyński, Wojciech. (2007). Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. (2001). Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Šolienė, Audronė. (2015). Multifunctionality of modal markers: Lithuanian epistemic adverbials gal and galbūt ‘perhaps/maybe’ vs. their translational correspondences. Kalbotyra, 67, 155-176.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Šolienė, Audronė. (2020). Lithuanian discourse markers na and nu: A glimpse at Lithuanian-English parallel corpus data. In Translating and Comparing Languages: Corpusbased Insights. Selected Proceedings of the Fifth Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies Conference edited by Sylviane Granger & Marie-Aude Lefer (pp. 237-255). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wiltschko, M. (2017). Response markers as a window intol inguistic modularity. Wiener Linguistische Gazette, 82, 303-311.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Xiang, Xuehua. (2011). Constraint reality: Linguistic expressions of restrictivity and emotive stances. A discourse-pragmatic study of utterance-final lāh in Shishan (Hainan Island, China). Lingua, 121(8), 1377-1400.
]Search in Google Scholar
