But, you see, the problem is … Perception verbs in courtroom talk: Focus on you see

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.2004.47179Search 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/CBO9780511607240Search 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.164.07duSearch 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_3Search 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.2018.11.001Search in Google Scholar

Brinton, L., 2008. The comment clause in English. Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511551789Search in Google Scholar

Brown, P. and Levinson, S., 1987 [1978]. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar

Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K., 2005. Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, vol. 7, no. 4–5, pp. 585–614.10.1177/1461445605054407Open 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. 427–448.10.1177/1461445604046585Open 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.1999.6.1.57Search 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/S0047404509990662Search 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.17.2.05mccOpen 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.4.19panSearch 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.840Search 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-2014-0089Search 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-2017-0034Search 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.11Search 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.lt1.66sinSearch 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/CBO9780511620904Search 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.2016.0090Search 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.18.005.8165Search 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.18.006.8166Search in Google Scholar