8/12/2019 Diane Mdx 08

1/15

Parentheticals: disfluency or stylistic choice?1

Diane BlakemoreCentre for Research in Linguistics

European Studies Research nstitute

!ni"ersity of Salfordd#$lakemore%salford#ac#uk

1. Introduction

Research on the communicati"e function of parentheticals has tended to focus on

spoken discourse and has largely assumed that the parenthetical material is assumed to

$e an e&ample of a 'disfluency( that characteri)es unplanned discourse* for e&ample:

+1, !h around the end of the century - it .as 1/00 .asn(t it - Elgar came along .ith

the Enigma ariations +CE23B S1$ 456 477: cited in 8ichmann 6441,

+6, 9hat(s a little $it of uh - ho. shall put it - uh uhm uh arrogance that has still got

to $e eliminated uh in my life# +CE23B S1$ 471: cited in 8ichmann 6441,#

+5, 8hen .e .ere on holiday - goodness* look at that car - .e sa. so many

interesting places# +constructed e&ample from 8ichmann 6441,

+7, 8hen .e .ere on holiday - you(re off soon as .ell* aren(t you - .e sa. so many

interesting places# +constructed e&ample from 8ichmann 6441,

Such disfluencies* claims 8ichmann +6441, are 'e"idence that speakers ha"e trou$le

planning their utterances* $ut are constrained $y interactional principles to keep talking(

+8ichmann 6441: 1/0,# ;n this interactional approach* the emphasis is on hesitations*

re"isions and self corrections* incidental comments a$out .hat is $eing said in the host

utterance* self2addressed

8/12/2019 Diane Mdx 08

2/15

and .hich is unintegrated in the sense that it could $e omitted .ithout affecting the rest

of that structure or its meaning( +1000:14>,#

8ichamnn +6441, argues that the idea that a parenthetical is an unplanned*

interpolated structure .hich is not integrated .ith its host syntactically or semantically is

supported $y studies .hich sho. that editing out a parenthetical lea"es the remaining

utterance sounding prosodically .ell2 formed and coherent +8ichmann 6444,# 9he

speaker .ill signal the digression prosodically* $ut .ill resume the pitch contour at the

point at .hich it is interrupted# 8hile the digression is typically signaled $y pauses* a

decrease in pitch and amplitude and increase in tempo* Bolinger +10/0, points out that

that any of these prosodic features may $e suspended# 9hus a parenthetical may $e higher

in pitch than the host* louder* and slo.er# 9he choice* claims Bolinger* depends on the

communicati"e function of the parenthetical - for e&ample* .hether it(s a re"ision* an

aside* an appeal* a hesitation* or a comment on the surrounding talk#

@t the same time* ho.e"er* 8ichmann points out that not all parentheticals are

semantically and syntactically detached to the same degree# 9here are structures .hich

ha"e the prosodic properties of parentheticals - they are intonationally comma(d off* as

syntacticians are fond of saying - $ut seem to $e syntactically and semantically related to

their hosts# Perhaps not surprisingly* these more integrated - or 'anchored( parentheticals

largely co2incide .ith the parenthetical phenomena that ha"e interested syntacticians and

+more recently, semanticists# 9hey include non2restricti"e relati"e clauses +e#g# +A,,*

nominal appositions +e#g# +>,,* and parenthetical ad"er$ial phrases ++,, and clauses +e#g#

+/,,:

+A, Penn* .ho last .eek recei"ed an ;scar for his role in Clint East.ood(sMystic

River* may also ha"e thought of East.ood(s pre"ious picture*Bloodwork=

+Observer arch 6447,

+>, Paul +Sean Penn,* an ailing mathematics teacher .ith a fe. months to li"e*

recei"es the architect(s heart in a successful transplant and hires a seedy pri"ate

detecti"e to disco"er the identity of his donor# +ilm re"ie. Observer arch

6447,

+, t is* unfortunately* impossi$le for you to go#

6

8/12/2019 Diane Mdx 08

3/15

+/, y idea* as you kno.* .as to treat the phenomenon as a con"entional

implicature#

9he GAG45,#

+11, 8hat is o$"ious - and .e ha"e eye2.itness reports - is that they .ere killed#

+from a discussion of the causes of the e&tinction of the population of Easter

sland* BBC* Radio 7* 6> @ugust 644A,#

+16, @ helicopter* a ELC;P9ER - and here .as me .ho(d ne"er e"en flo.n in an

ordinary plane - .ould come and pick me up at =# +from Stargazing: memoirs of

a yong lighthose keeper* $y Peter ill* a$ridged $y Laurence 8aring* read for

Radio 7 $y Da"id 9enant,

Ho matter .hat you think of the arguments that ha"e $een made for accommodating

parenthetical ad"er$ial clauses such as the one in +/, or nominal appositions such as the

one in +>, in the grammar* there could $e no such case for a parenthetical such as the one

in +0, or +14,# Iet at a communicati"e le"el* e"en these linguistically unlicensed

5

8/12/2019 Diane Mdx 08

4/15

parentheticals are more like the those that ha"e $een accommodated in the grammar than

the digressi"e* unintegrated parentheticals in* say* +5, and +7,# 9hey may $e* as Potts

+644A, argues* 'non2at2 issue( in the sense that their truth conditional content is sealed off

from that of the host# He"ertheless* in contrast .ith* say* +5, and +7,* their utterance is

ustified $y the .ay in .hich their interpretation is related to that of their hosts at the

le"el of pragmatic interpretation# ;f course* if you argue* as aegeman +10//, and

Burton2 Ro$erts +100/, ha"e done* that there is no syntactic integration in the e&amples

in +A, - +/,* and that the parentheticals in these e&amples are in fact syntactic orphans*

then integration at the le"el of pragmatic interpretation is allyou ha"e in any of these

e&amples# o.e"er* shall adopt a position of con"enient agnosticism on this issue here#

2. Pragmatic integration

n fact* as ha"e argued +Blakemore 644>* 644,* not all pragmatically integrated

parentheticals are related to their hosts in the same .ay# or e&ample* .hile some

parentheticals may affect the e&plicit or implicit interpretation of their hosts* others are

related to their hosts only in the sense that they are interpreted in a conte&t of

assumptions or

8/12/2019 Diane Mdx 08

5/15

e&pected to deri"e an assumption a$out the strength of commitment that is $eing

communicated on the $asis of particular conte&tual assumptions a$out the eye .itness

reports +e#g# that they constitute the $est e"idence that a historian might pro"ide,#

o.e"er* the point is that the rele"ance of the parenthetical lies in the effect that it has on

the hearer(s understanding of the degree of commitment that is $eing communicated $y

the host* and hence one might say that it affects the deri"ation of a higher2le"el

e&plicature#

@ parenthetical may also affect the interpretation of its host $y communicating an

assumption .hich alters the conte&t for the interpretation of the host utterance# Recall the

e&ample in +16, +from Blakemore 644A,# n this passage the information that a helicopter

.ould come and pick him the author up is rele"ant as a representation as a representation

of an utterance in a letter .hich he has recei"ed# o.e"er* the author(s aim is not simply

to communicate the contents of the letter* $ut to ena$le the readerGhearer to share his

reaction to the letter as he read it# 9hus the repetition of a helicopter+.hich in this

reading .as produced .ith emphatic stress, is intended to encourage the hearer to

e&plore his o.n conte&tual assumptions a$out helicopters further in order to deri"e

implicatures .hich capture the e&citement of $eing a$le to tra"el in a helicopter# 9he and2

parenthetical refines this search in the sense that the hearer .ill $e encouraged to imagine

the prospect of tra"eling in a helicopter for someone .ho has ne"er flo.n in any kind of

plane at all# 9here is a sense in .hich the relationship $et.een the and2parenthetical and

host in this e&ample is similar to the relationship $et.een the conuncts of +15,:

+15, hadn(t e"en flo.n in an ordinary plane and they .ere sending a helicopter to

pick me up#

o.e"er* this is to ignore the role that the repetition and the and2parenthetical play in

creating the impression that the readerGhearer is reading - and processing - the letter .ith

the author and in this .ay sharing his e&citement# @n utterance such as +15, could not $e

used to create this sort of stylistic effect#

A

8/12/2019 Diane Mdx 08

6/15

3. Parentheticals and stylistic choice

9his sort of e&ample sho.s that a parenthetical is not al.ays the result of the trou$le that

speakers ha"e in planning their utterances: on the contrary* it is itself planned and is the

result of a choice made for a particular stylistic effect# o.e"er* do not .ish to suggest

that all pragmatically integrated parentheticals are the result of a stylistic choice#

Pragmatically integrated parentheticals may also $e the result of the sort of on2line

reformulation and re"ision .hich characteri)es spontaneous discourse# Consider* for

e&ample* the e&ample in +17, +from Blakemore 644A,:

+17, 8e .ere in the pu$ garden and a $ig rat - and mean B3 rat - ran out from

underneath our ta$le#

9his and!parenthetical is intended to play a role in the hearer(s interpretation of a big rat

in the host utterance* and in this .ay it affects his interpretation of its truth conditional

content at the le"el of pragmatic interpretation# 9he .ay in .hich the parenthetical

achie"es this effect can $e e&plained in terms of Ro$yn Carston(s +6446, account of the

pragmatics of on2line concept construction# 9he idea is that .e use our conte&tual

assumptions a$out rats and the encoded meaning of bigto reco"er a pragmatically

deri"ed concept B3;R@R@9K# o.e"er* the parenthetical .ill encourage us to search

our conte&tual assumptions further to deri"e a different concept B3;R@R@9KK 2 and

.e .ill assume that this is a more faithful representation of the sort of rat the speaker is

recalling +a rat .hich is much $igger than any normal $ig rat,# 6

8hile this sort of e&ample may demonstrate the difficulties that speakers ha"e in

formulating their utterances in spontaneous discourse* it does not sho. ho. they are

constrained $y interactional principles to 'keep talking(* as 8ichmann claims# 9he

decision - and it is a decision - to reformulate* re"ise* or comment on .hat one has said

in a parenthetical is constrained $y the aim of optimi)ing rele"ance# @s Sper$er J

8ilson +100A, ha"e pointed out* the fact that an utterance is produced and processed o"er

time means that a hearer .ill $e a$le to access some of its constituent concepts* .ith their

associated logical and encyclopedic entries* $efore others# 9his means that certain

conte&tual assumptions .ill $e triggered $efore others* and that a hearer .ho is assuming

>

8/12/2019 Diane Mdx 08

7/15

optimal rele"ance .ill use these to construct hypotheses a$out the speaker(s informati"e

intention# 9his suggests that the point of disrupting the structure in* say* +17,* is to ensure

that the hearer to direct his efforts to the reco"ery of those effects from an e&plicature

.hich includes the concept B3;R@R@9KK rather than one .hich includes the concept

B3;R@R@9K# n other .ords* it ensures that the hearer does not .aste processing

effort in the construction of an e&plicature .hich does not yield an interpretation .hich is

a faithful representation of the speaker(s thoughts# n this .ay* the use of the

parenthetical is consistent .ith the speaker(s aim of achie"ing rele"ance for minimum

cost in processing effort#

9he point is that the pursuit of optimal rele"ance means that everycommunicator

.ill aim to choose the most rele"ant "ehicle for her thoughts .ithin the parameters set $y

her a$ilities and interests# t is ine"ita$le that speakers engaged in spontaneous discourse

and speakers engaged in planned discourse are .orking .ithin different parameters#

9here are forms a"aila$le to speakers that are not a"aila$le to .riters* and* indeed "ice

"ersa# oreo"er* the stylistic decisions made in spontaneous discourse are fast* made 'on

the trot(* and are affected $y the e"idence pro"ided $y the audience(s o.n contri$ution to

the discourse# Conse

8/12/2019 Diane Mdx 08

8/15

communication# y concern in this final section is .ith the use of parenthetical

structures $y .riters of free indirect thought +9, or free indirect style +S,#

@s Dillon J Firchhoff +10>, say* the material that appears in S is to $e

understood as a representation of a character(s thoughts as he .ould e&press them*

'though not necessarily as a "er$atimM rendering of internal speech +10>: 751,# 8ithin

the rele"ance theoretic frame.ork of this paper* all utterances are H9ERPRE9E

REPRESEH9@9;HSof thoughts* and there is no guarantee that the interpretation reco"ered

$y an audience is identical .ith the thoughts communicated# 9he success of an act of

communication does not depend on the duplication of thoughts* $ut rather on the

enlargement of mutual cogniti"e en"ironments# n ordinary descripti"e uses of language*

the interpretation is intended to contri$ute to the sense of mutuality $et.een

communicator and audience# n S it contri$utes to the sense of mutuality $et.een

character and audience#

9his means that a .riter aiming to represent a character(s thought may use a

linguistic form to suggest a line of processing rather than to deli"er a particular set of

assumptions* and that elements of the utterance do not necessarily correspond to

particular constituents of a character(s thoughts# 9hus a .riter of S uses such de"ices as

e&clamati"es* e&pressi"es* repetition and the sort of appositional pseudo repetitions

discussed in my 644/ paper# 9he passage in +1A, is typical:

+1A, 9hat .as the .ay to li"e - carelessly* recklessly*spending oneself# e got to his

feet and $egan to .ade to.ards the shore* pressing his toes into the firm* .rinkled

sand# To take things easy* not to fight against the ebb and flow of life* $ut to gi"e

.ay to it - that .as .hat .as needed# 9o li"e - to li"e +Fatherine ansfield* '@t

the Bay(* p# 640,

8hen Dillon J Firchhoff say that S is not necessarily a "er$atim rendering of

internal speech they do not so much ha"e in mind the difference $et.een the duplication

and interpretation of thoughts as the $lurring of the distinction $et.een direct and

indirect discourse# or .hile it displays many of the features of direct discourse

+e&clamati"es* repetitions* e&pressi"es and so on,* it also maintains the 5 rdperson

/

8/12/2019 Diane Mdx 08

9/15

pronominal reference and the '$ack2shifted( tense that characteri)es indirect discourse# n

other .ords* one hears $oth the "oice of the character and the "oice of the author# ndeed*

as Erlich +1004, points out* the e"ents of a S narrati"e may $e con"eyed from the

perspecti"e of many different characters as .ell as of the narrator#

t seems any interest that has $een sho.n in the role of parentheticals in S is

restricted to those parentheticals .hich e&plicitly indicate the source of the represented

thought# 9he follo.ing are Erlich(s +1004, e&amples from To the "ighthose:

+1>, er shoes .ere e&cellent* he o$ser"ed# +To the "ighthose* 66,

+1, uman relations .ere all like that* she thought* and the .orst +if it had not $een

for r Bankes, .ere $et.een men and .omen# +To the "ighthose* 14

Such parentheticals may $e said to pro"ide e"idence of the narrator: it is* after all* 8oolf

.ho is e&plicitly attri$uting the content of the host to her characters# o.e"er* as

Reinhart +10/5, o$ser"ed* a speaker .ho e&plicitly attri$utes an assumption to a su$ect

can present that assumption either from his o.n perspecti"e or from the perspecti"e of

the su$ect to .hom it is $eing attri$uted# Ho.* Potts +644A, has argued that e&pressi"es

are among a class of e&pressions and structures .hich communicate assumptions .hich

must $e attri$uted to the speaker of the utterances .hich contain them - they are speaker

oriented#5 or e&ample* .hat is communicated $y the e&pressi"e in +1/a, in the indirect

thought report cannot $e attri$uted to Nohn* $ut rather represents the speaker(s o.n point

of "ie.:

+1/, +a, Nohni thinks that it .as that $astard enry .ho got hisio$#

o.e"er* +1/$,* .here the e&pressi"e occurs a sentence marked as free indirect thought

+note the for.ard pronominali)ation and o$ligatory tense agreement, .hate"er is

communicated $y the e&pressi"e must $e attri$uted to Nohn +the su$ect, rather than the

speaker:

0

8/12/2019 Diane Mdx 08

10/15

+1/, +$, t .as that $astard enry .ho had got hisio$* thought Nohni#

;r* to take an e&ample adapted from Erlich +1004,* the speaker of +10a, .ill not $e taken

to $e attri$uting a contradictory $elief to ;edipus $ecause the assumption in the host is

$eing represented from the point of "ie. of the speaker +.ho* in contrast .ith ;edipus

kno.s that Nocasta is his mother,:

+1/, +a, @ccording to ;edipusihisimother isn(t hisimother#

n contrast* in +10$,* .hich* like the e&amples in +1>, J +1,* e&hi$its the for.ard

pronominali)ation and o$ligatory tense agreement that characteri)es such sentences in

9* this speaker2oriented interpretation is not possi$le# @s a result* the host must $e

interpreted from the perspecti"e of the su$ect and the speaker .ill $e understood to $e

attri$uting a contradictory $elief to ;edipus:

+10, +$, K isi mother .as not hisimother* ;edipusi$elie"ed#

@ccording to Reinhart and Erlich* sentences in 9 containing parentheticals .hich

attri$ute the source of the thought $eing represented are al.ays su$ect2oriented#

o.e"er* the parentheticals one finds in S are not restricted to the clauses

.hich e&plicitly indicate the source of the thought $eing represented# 9here are the self2

addressed

8/12/2019 Diane Mdx 08

11/15

9here are also the re"isions* hedges and reformulations that one might find in unplanned

discourse - for e&ample:

+61, onica al.ays had the feeling that they lo"ed her in this shop and understood her

- the real her - far $etter than many of her friends did# +ansfield*Revelations*

105,#

+66, 9hey might $egin $y $eing as serious as possi$le* dead serious - at any rate* as far

as he .as concerned - $ut then suddenly* in the middle of a sentence* @nne .ould

glance at him* and a little

8/12/2019 Diane Mdx 08

12/15

n all these cases* $oth the parenthetical and its host represent thoughts .hich can

$e attri$uted to the character# o.e"er* there are also parentheticals .hich represent a

character(s thought $ut seem to interrupt a description .hich is in the author(s "oice:

+6>, e $egan parting his $ushy hair* his $lue eyes fi&ed and round in the glass* his

knees $ent $ecause the dressing ta$le .as al.ays - confound it - a $it too lo. for him#

+ansfield*&relde* 6A,

o.e"er* one also finds parentheticals .hich can $e attri$uted to the author $ut

.hich interrupt a representation of a thought .hich must $e attri$uted to a character#

irginia 8oolf seems fond of this de"ice - there are three e&amples in the follo.ing

passage:

+6, e ne"er kne. .hat people thought# t $ecame more and more difficult for him to

concentrate# e $ecame a$sor$edO he $ecame $usied .ith his o.n concernsO no.

surly* no. gayO dependent on .omen* a$sent2minded* moody* less and less a$le

+so he thought as he sha"ed, to understand .hy Clarissa couldn(t simply find

them a lodging and $e nice to DaisyO introduce her# @nd then he could ust - ust

do .hat? ust haunt and ho"er +he .as at the moment actually engaged in sorting

out "arious keys* papers, s.oop and taste* $e alone* in short* sufficient to himselfO

and yet no$ody of course .as more dependent on others +he $uttoned his

.aistcoat,O it had $een his undoing# +8oolf*Mrs #alloway* 174,

9he material surrounding the three underlined parentheticals in this passage can $e

interpreted as a representation of 8oolf(s character(s +Peter 8alsh(s thoughts,# o.e"er*

the parentheticals are not part of these thoughts* $ut pro"ide e"idence of the author(s

"oice# 9he first indicates the source of the thought* and* moreo"er* descri$es the physical

conte&t in .hich Peter 8alsh is ha"ing the thoughts 8oolf is representing# 9his

description actually $egins a couple of pages earlier .ith the sentence 'Peter 8alsh

unlaced his $oots( and it is taken up again .ith the third parenthetical in the passage in

+6,#

16

8/12/2019 Diane Mdx 08

13/15

9he second parenthetical can also $e interpreted as pro"iding e"idence of the

author# o.e"er* this time it seems to $e pragmatically related to the host in the sense

that it pro"ides e"idence for - or strengthens - the attri$uted thought it represents# 9here

is a similar e&ample in +6/, .here 8oolf is representing the thoughts of Richard

Dallo.ay:

+6/, @s for Buckingham Palace +like an old prima donna facing the audience all in

.hite, you can(t deny it a certain dignity* he considered* nor despise .hat it does*

after all* stand to millions of people +a little cro.d .as .aiting at the gate to see

the Fing dri"e out, for a sym$ol* a$surd though it isO =+8oolf*Mrs #alloway*

147,

n fact* the first parenthetical ha"e underlined can $e interpreted as a representation of a

thought .hich is attri$uted to Richard Dallo.ay# 9he second is an e&ample of a

parenthetical .hich e&plicitly identifies the source of the thought# o.e"er* the third

seems to pro"ide e"idence of the author(s "oice* e"en though it pro"ides a conte&tual

assumption for* and hence strengthens* the interpretation of the represented thought in the

host#

9he e&amples in +6>, - +6/, reflect the hy$rid nature of free indirect style# t is as

@uer$ach +10>/* cited $y Erlich 1004, has said* 'a multi2personal representation of

consciousness( in that it communicates thoughts from $oth the perspecti"e of fictional

characters and the author# 9hus .hile the use of de"ices .hich characteri)e direct

discourse contri$ute to the impression that the author is identifying .ith the character

.hose thoughts are $eing represented* there are ne"ertheless other features .hich remind

us of the presence of the author# @s .e ha"e seen* parentheticals play $oth types of role:

they contri$ute to the identification .ith the author $y capturing the digressions and

interruptions that characteri)e direct speech and thought* and they also remind us of the

author(s presence $y pro"iding the sort of information .hich the author $elie"es .ill help

us understand the thoughts $eing represented# Either .ay* one must see these

parentheticals as the result of deli$erate stylistic choice#

15

8/12/2019 Diane Mdx 08

14/15

Notes

1# 9his is a minimally re"ised "ersion of the paper read at the .orkshop on pragmatics

and style* iddlese& !ni"ersity* 1> Nuly 644/# .ould like to thank Billy Clark for

organi)ing the .orkshop* and all those .ho participated in the discussion follo.ing thepaper#

6# do not .ant this to $e taken to mean that .e understand .hat is communicated $ythis parenthetical as $eingpartof the thought communicated# 9he speaker of +17, .ill $e

understood to $e communicating t.o distinct thoughts - the one communicated $y the

host +represented "ery roughly in +i,, and the one communicated $y the parenthetical

+represented "ery roughly as in +ii,,:

+i, @B3R@9KK R@H;!9R;!HDERHE@9;!R9@BLEQ i+ii, 8EH9ESPE@FER;+>, S@IS9E8;RDSBI'R(TSEE@HS'B3

R@9KK(

Each of these .ill ha"e its o.n truth conditions* and in this sense the parenthetical iscompositionally independent of the host# oreo"er* each .ill ha"e its o.n rele"ance#

o.e"er* the point is that the thought communicated $y the parenthetical is abotthe

thought communicated $y the host* and that it has no rele"ance $eyond its role inidentifying this thought# 9hus it can only $e said to affect the interpretation of the host in

the sense that it communicates a proposition .hich is abotsome aspect of its

interpretation# t is .hat ha"e called a E9@2C;HCEP9!@Lparenthetical +Blakemore

644,#

5# ore recently* Potts +644, concedes that there may indeed $e cases in .hich the

e&pressi"e falls .ithin the scope of the thought report* and that the interpretation in.hich the e&pressi"e reflects the speaker(s point of "ie. is simply the pragmatic default:

'it appears to $e a marked option to e"aluate e&pressi"es .ith a udge .ho is also not the

speaker* $ut .e need to allo. for the possi$ility(#

References

@uer$ach* E# +10>/,Mimesis* Princeton !ni"ersity Press* Princeton* HN#Bi$er* D et al +1000,"ongman 'rammar of Spoken and )ritten *nglish# Longman*

London#

Blakemore* D# +644A, (nd2parentheticals*+ornal of &ragmatics5* 11>A 2 11/1Blakemore* D# +644>, 9he di"ision of la$our $et.een synta& and pragmatics:

parentheticals# n R# Carston* D# Blakemore J # "an de Foot +eds#,"angage,

mind and commnication: essays in honor of -eil Smith. Special ssue of"inga11>* 1>4 - 1>/#

Blakemore* D# +644, Or2parentheticals* that is2parentheticals and the pragmatics of

reformulation(#+ornal of "ingistics75* 5112550#

Blakemore* D# +644/, @pposition and affecti"e communication*"angage and

17

8/12/2019 Diane Mdx 08

15/15

"iteratre 1#1* 5 2 A/

Bolinger* D#* 10/0#Intonation and its /ses# Stanford !ni"ersity Press* Stanford#

Burton2Ro$erts* H#* 100/# Language* linear precedence and parentheticals#n Collins* P# J Lee* D#* +Eds#,* The 0lase in *nglish# Nohn Benamins*

@msterdam* pp#55 - A6#

Burton2Ro$erts* H#* 644A# Parentheticals# n Bro.n* E#F# +Ed#,**nclyclopaedia of"angage and "ingistics* Else"ier* @msterdam#

Carston* R# +6446, Thoghts and /tterances# Black.ell* ;&ford#

Dillon* 3# J # Firchhoff +10>, ;n the form and function of free indirect style#&T": (+ornal for #escriptive &oetics and Theory of "iteratre 1* pp 751 - 774#

Erlich* S# +1004,&oints of view: a lingistic analysis of literary style# Routledge#

Emonds* N#* 100# @ppositi"e relati"es ha"e no properties#"ingistic In1iry14* 611

- 75#Espinal* 9#* 1001# 9he representation of disunct constituents#"angage>#7* 6>2

>6#

aegeman* L#*10//# Parenthetical ad"er$ials: the radical orphanage approach#

n Chi$a* S# +Ed#,*(spects of Modern *nglish "ingistics# Faitakushi* 9okyo* pp#6562A7#

ann* 8#C# J 9hompson* S# +10/,# Relational propositions in discourse##iscorse&rocesses0* A - 04#

ann* 8#C# J 9hompson* S# +10//,# Rhetorical structure theory: to.ards a functional

theory of te&t organisation# Te2t/#5* 675 - /1#Potts* C#* 6446# 9he synta& and semantics of as2parentheticals# HLL9 64* >652/0#

Potts* C#* 6445 Con"entional implicatures* a distinguished class of meanings# n

Ramchand* 3#* Reiss* C# +Eds#,* The O2ford $andbook of "ingistic Interfaces#

;&ford !ni"ersity Press* ;&ford#Potts* C#* 644A# The "ogic of 0onventional Implicatres# ;!P* ;&ford#

Potts* C# +644,# 9he e&pressi"e dimension# Theoretical "ingistics55+6,:1>A210

Reinhart* 9 +10/5, Points of "ie. in language - the use of parentheticals# n 3# Rauh+ed#, Essays on Dei&is# 9u$inen: 3unter Harr#

Safir* F#* 10/># Relati"e clauses in a theory of $inding and le"els#"ingistic In1iry

1#7* >>52/0#Sper$er* D# J D# 8ilson +100A,Relevance# Black.ell#

9aglicht* N#* 100/# Constraints on intonational phrasing in English#+ornal of

"ingistics57* 1/12611#

8ichmann* @#* 6441# Spoken parentheticals# n @imer* F#+Ed#,* ( )ealth of*nglish# 3othen$urg !ni"ersity Press* 3othen$urg* pp#11205#

Sources

Fatherine ansfield* The 0ollected Short Stories* Penguin 10/1#

irginia 8oolf*Mrs #alloway* Panther Books +3ranada, 10>#irginia 8oolf* To the "ighthose* Penguin Books 10>7#

1A