What in the academics doing things is this?

References

1. Athanasiadou, Angeliki (2020). Intensification via figurative language. In AnnalisaBaicchi (Hrsg.), Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language, 91–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Bybee, Joan L (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Catasso, Nicholas (2019). On splittable aggressively non-D-linked expressions and their correlates in West Germanic. Selected Papers of ISTAL2388–103.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Cruse, Alan (2006). A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Du Bois, John W. (2007). The stance triangle. In RobertEnglebretson (Hrsg.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Eckert, Penelope & SallyMcConnell-Ginet (1992). Think Practically and Look Locally: Language and Gender as Community-Based Practice. Annual Review of Anthropology21. 461–490.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Fillmore, Charles (1985). Syntactic Intrusions and the Notion of Grammatical Construction. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society73–86.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Hugou, Vincent (2017). The WHX construction (what the hell…?) and intensity. A corpus-based study. Lexis10.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Kövecses, Zoltán (2006). Language, Mind, and Culture: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Lakoff, George & MarkJohnson (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Ochs, Elinor (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In John J.Gumperz & Stephen C.Levinson (Hrsg.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, 407–438. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Oguro, Takeshi (2017). The true nature of WH-the hell phrases. Florida Linguistics Papers4. 113–126.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Pesetsky, David (1987). Wh-in-Situ: Movement and unselective binding. In EricReuland & Aliceter Meulen (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, 98–129. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Romero, Clara (2007). Pour une définition générale de l’intensité dans le langage. Travaux de linguistique1(54). 57–68.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Schoonjans, Steven (2022a). On the external and internal productivity of IAW phrases in German. Presented at the 9th International Conference of Grammar & Corpora, Ghent.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Schoonjans, Steven (2022b). IAW phrases in German: unity in diversity? Presented at the CogLing Days 2022, Tilburg.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Schoonjans, Steven (2023). Eine Typologie der IAW-Phrasen in Ergänzungsfragen. Linguistische Treffen in Wrocław23(I). 151–164.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Schoonjans, Steven (2024). »Warum, zum roten Teufel, soll man das glauben?« Zur Vielfalt und zum Anpassungspotenzial deutscher IAW-Phrasen, am Beispiel des Musters [zu X]. Muttersprache134(1). 19–41.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Searle, John R. (1975). A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts. In KeithGunderson (ed.), Language, Mind and Knowledge, 344–369. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Silverstein, Michael (2005). Axes of Evals: Token versus Type Interdiscursivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology15(1). 6–22.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Spitzmüller, Jürgen (2022). Soziolinguistik. Eine Einführung. Berlin: J.B. Metzler.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Stefanowitsch, Anatol (2011). Keine Grammatik ohne Konstruktionen: Ein logischökonomisches Argument für die Konstruktionsgrammatik. In StefanEngelberg, AnkeHoller & KristelProost (eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik, 181–210. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th.Gries (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics8(2). 209–243.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Terkourafi, Marina (2005). Pragmatic correlates of frequency of use: the case for a notion of „minimal context“. In SophiaMarmaridou, KikiNikiforidou & EleniAntonopoulou (eds.), Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trend for the 21st Century, 209–233. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]