---
title: "“It was just so hard” — paper by Manetta and Bhatia (2024)"
description: "The paper describes a use of English just that had not been noticed before. 50 references."
authors: ["Emily Walker Manetta", "Ian Bhatia"]
year: 2024
venue: "Glossa: a journal of general linguistics"
source: "https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/10362/"
doi: "10.16995/glossa.10362"
licence: "CC BY 4.0"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/manetta-2024-it-was-just-so-hard/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/manetta-2024-it-was-just-so-hard/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2024](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2024/page/16/) / “It was just so hard”: ineffable \<em>just\</em> as a mixed expressive

# “It was just so hard”: ineffable \<em>just\</em> as a mixed expressive

**Authors:** Emily Walker Manetta and Ian Bhatia · **Year:** 2024 · **Venue:** [Glossa: a journal of general linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/) ([Glossa a journal of general linguistics 2024](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/2024/)) · **Publisher:** [Ubiquity Press](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/ubiquity-press/) · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.10362) · [PDF](https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/10362/galley/30575/download) · [DOI 10.16995/glossa.10362](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.10362) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W4389680652)

**Citations:** 1 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14)

## Summary
The paper describes a use of English *just* that had not been noticed before. The authors call it "ineffability just". It appears in speech about overwhelming experiences, as in "it was just so hard". They found it in the StoryListening Corpus, a set of recorded bereavement narratives collected over video during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The authors argue that this *just* carries two layers of meaning at once:
- **Descriptive layer:** it works like the emphatic exclusive operator from Beltrama (2021). It rules out any richer, more elaborate description than the one the speaker produced.
- **Expressive layer:** it signals that the speaker's emotional state is preventing them from finding fuller words.

They formalize this dual behavior with McCready's (2010) logic for mixed expressives, which extends Potts' multidimensional semantics.

The results support two broader claims:
- All exclusive uses of *just* share one core, namely excluding alternatives. The guises differ in what the alternative set contains and why its members are rejected.
- Exclusive operators belong in the inventory of expressive-bearing words.

The study also shows that emotionally intense, specially themed corpora can surface meaning phenomena that ordinary data hides.

## Key points
- **The corpus:** StoryListening contains 62 sessions, each roughly 3,000–18,000 words, about 382,000 words in total. The sessions were transcribed automatically with Otter.ai and then corrected by hand.
- **Annotation:** 41 corrected transcripts were searched in NVivo. Of 2,784 occurrences of *just*, 191 (6.9%) were classed as ineffability *just*, and each was double-checked against the video.
- **Coding procedure:** coders followed a yes/no decision sequence:
  1. Is it an exclusive operator?
  2. Is it not one of the known exclusive subtypes (e.g. emphatic)?
  3. Is there an affective response, disfluency or hesitation?
  
  Every token needed agreement from at least two coders. Disputed tokens were dropped.
- **Distinctive behavior:** unlike focus-associating exclusive *just*, the ineffability variant need not attach to an overt focused phrase. It can even appear with no audible prejacent at all.
- **The formal denotation** pairs two components, separated by a diamond operator that keeps both dimensions active:
  - an emphatic-exclusive MIN/MAX component;
  - an expressive "ineffable for the context judge" component, where the judge is by default the speaker.

## Interesting ideas
- A staged yes/no classification rubric, with tokens discarded when coders disagree, produces a small but clean label set for a slippery category; the same filtering logic suits any noisy annotation task.
- Many surface senses of one word can share a single core operation (excluding alternatives), with variation coming only from what the alternatives are and why they are rejected; this is cheaper than listing unrelated senses.
- At-issue content and speaker-attitude content can be stored together in one semantic object but computed in separate dimensions, so the attitude never leaks into truth conditions.
- Disfluencies, hesitations and unfinished prejacents act as evidence for a meaning rather than as noise to be discarded.
- Corpora built around extreme, emotionally loaded situations reveal usages that general corpora rarely show.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (learn): Silver-data agreement among witness parsers or LLM teacher tiers could use an ordered rubric of checks, dropping items where witnesses split rather than forcing a label.
- **I2** (frames): Treat *just*, *only* and *merely* as one exclusion frame parameterized by the type of alternative set (individuals, degrees, richer descriptions), instead of separate lexical entries.
- **I3** (world): Statements like "it was just so hard" should add a plain difficulty state to the world, with the speaker's overwhelmed attitude kept in a separate, explainable expressive layer attached to the narrator.
- **I4** (tree): Fragments like "it's just – just sad" could keep repeated or truncated *just* as attached tokens with a marked dangling relation, so later stages can read them as affect cues.
- **I5** (answer): Test readers on emotionally charged narrative passages, not only neutral fables, to check that expressive markers do not distort factual answers.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

- [University of South Carolina](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/university-of-south-carolina/) — University, Columbia, United States · 8 works · 785 citations
- [University of Vermont](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/university-of-vermont/) — University, Burlington, United States · 6 works · 3,740 citations

📚 Shelves (3): [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 17,450 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 17,296 works · [🤔 Philosophy](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/philosophy/) · 287 works

🧭 Topics (1): [English](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/english/) · 2,379 works

## Cite

Cite as: Emily Walker Manetta and Ian Bhatia. 2024. “It was just so hard”: ineffable \<em>just\</em> as a mixed expressive. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@article{manetta2024it,
  title = {{“It was just so hard”: ineffable <em>just</em> as a mixed expressive}},
  author = {Emily Walker Manetta and Ian Bhatia},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2024},
  doi = {10.16995/glossa.10362},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.10362}
}
```

- [← previous Who Did You Blame When Your Project Failed? Designing a Corpus for Presupposition Generation in Cross-Examination Dialogues](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/francis-2024-who-did-you-blame-when/)
- [next → 360Zhinao Technical Report](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/360zhinao-team-2024-360zhinao-technical-report/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2024](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2024/page/16/)

## References

50 references, 4 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Asher, Nicholas & Vieu, Laure. 2005. Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations. Lingua 115(4). 591–610. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.017 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.017)
2. Asher, Nicolas & Lascarides, Alex. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge, UK: CUP. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Asher%2C+Nicolas+%26+Lascarides%2C+Alex%2E+2003%2E+Logics+of+Conversation%2E+Cambridge%2C+UK%3A+CUP%2E)
3. Beaver, David & Clark, Brady. 2008. Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304176 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304176)
4. Bell, Alan & Brenier, Jason & Gregory, Michelle & Girand, Cythia & Jurafsky, Dan. 2009. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 60(1). 92–111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003)
5. Beltrama, Andrea. 2021. Just perfect, simply the best. An analysis of emphatic exclusion. Linguistics and Philosophy 45. 321–364. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-021-09326-x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-021-09326-x)
6. Beltrama, Andrea & Lee, J. 2015. Great Pizzas, Ghost Negations: The Emergence and Persistence of Mixed Expressives. Sinn und Bedeutung 19. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Beltrama%2C+Andrea+%26+Lee%2C+J%2E+2015%2E+Great+Pizzas%2C+Ghost+Negations%3A+The+Emergence+and+Persistence+of+Mixed+Expressives%2E+Sinn+und+Bedeutung+19%2E)
7. Bergen, Leon. 2016. Joint Inference in Pragmatic Reasoning. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bergen%2C+Leon%2E+2016%2E+Joint+Inference+in+Pragmatic+Reasoning%2E+Boston%2C+MA%3A+Massachusetts+Institute+of+Technology+Dissertation%2E)
8. Bern-Klug, Mercedes & Singh, Jaswinder & Liu, Jinyu & Shinkunas, Laura. 2019. Prospect Theory Concepts Applied to Family Members of Nursing Home Residents with Cancer: A Good Ending Is a Gain. Journal of Social Work and End of Life Palliative Care 15(1). 34–54. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1080/15524256.2019.1580242 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/15524256.2019.1580242)
9. Carston, Robyn. 2010. Metaphor: ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 110. 295–321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2010.00288.x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2010.00288.x)
10. Cole, Jeremy & Reitter, David. 2017. The Timing of Lexical Memory Retrievals in Language Production. Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2018. 2017–2027. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf. io/tmxdf Coppock, Elizabeth & Beaver, David. 2014. Principles of the exclusive muddle. Journal of Semantics 31(3). 371–432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft007 [↗](https://doi.org/10.31234/osf)
11. Cote, Sharon. 2014. Elaboration: A Function and a Form. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v23i1.1265 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v23i1.1265)
12. Ekström, Katherine & Gramling, Robert. 2023. A Doula Led Storytelling Intervention and Trajectory of Loneliness Among People Grieving During the COVID Pandemic. ms, Vermont Conversation Lab, University of Vermont. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ekstr%C3%B6m%2C+Katherine+%26+Gramling%2C+Robert%2E+2023%2E+A+Doula+Led+Storytelling+Intervention+and+Trajectory+of+Loneliness+Among+People+Grieving+During+the+COVID+Pandemic%2E+ms%2C+Vermont+Conversation+Lab%2C+Universit)
13. Feinmann, Diego. 2020. Lexical Illusions, (Non-)Maximality, and Invisible Gaps. Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield Dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Feinmann%2C+Diego%2E+2020%2E+Lexical+Illusions%2C+%28Non%2D%29Maximality%2C+and+Invisible+Gaps%2E+Sheffield%2C+UK%3A+University+of+Sheffield+Dissertation%2E)
14. Franke, M. 2011. [Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/franke-2011-quantity-implicatures-exhaustive-interpretation-rational/). Semantics and Pragmatics 4(1). 1–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.4.1 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.4.1)
15. Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 64–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003)
16. Groenendijk, Jeroen & Stokhof, Martin. 1991. Dynamic Predicate Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1). 39–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00628304 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00628304)
17. Gutzmann, Daniel. 2012. Expressive intensifiers in German: syntax-semantics mismatches. In Piñíon, Christopher (ed.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9, 149–166. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gutzmann%2C+Daniel%2E+2012%2E+Expressive+intensifiers+in+German%3A+syntax%2Dsemantics+mismatches%2E+In+Pi%C3%B1%C3%ADon%2C+Christopher+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Empirical+Issues+in+Syntax+and+Semantics+9%2C+149%E2%80%93166%2E)
18. Gutzmann, Daniel. 2019. The Grammar of Expressivity. (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 72). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198812128.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198812128.001.0001)
19. Harris, Jesse A. & Potts, Christopher. 2009. Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressives. Linguistics and Philosophy 32(6). 523–552. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-010-9070-5 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-010-9070-5)
20. Hobbs, Jerry R. 1979. Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science 3. 67–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0301_4 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0301_4)
21. Hobbs, Jerry R. 1983. [An Improper Treatment of Quantification](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/hobbs-1983-improper-treatment-quantification-ordinary-english/). In Ordinary English. ACL-83, Cambridge, MA, 57–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3115/981311.981322 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3115/981311.981322)
22. Horn, Laurence R. 2000. Pick a theory (not just any theory): Indiscriminatives and the free-choice indefinite. In Horn, Laurence R. & Kato, Yasuhiko (eds.), Negation and Polarity, 147–192. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238744.003.0006 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238744.003.0006)
23. Iatridou, Sabine & Tatevosov, Sergei. 2016. Our even. Linguistics and Philosophy 39. 295–331. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9190-7 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9190-7)
24. Kehler Andrew. 2002. Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kehler+Andrew%2E+2002%2E+Coherence%2C+Reference%2C+and+the+Theory+of+Grammar%2E+Stanford%2C+CA%3A+CSLI%2E)
25. Kennedy, Christopher & McNally, Louise. 2005. Scale Sructure and the Semantic Typology of Gradable Predicates. Language 81. 345–381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0071 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0071)
26. Kishner, Jeffrey M. & Gibbs, Raymond W. 1996. How “Just” Gets Its Meanings: Polysemy and Context in Psychological Semantics. Language and Speech 39. 19–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1177/002383099603900102 [↗](https://doi.org/10.)
27. Lasersohn, Peter. 1999. Pragmatic halos. Language 75(3). 522–551. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/ 417059 [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/)
28. Lasersohn, Peter. 2005. Context Dependence, Disagreement, and Predicates of Personal Taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28. 643–686. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-0596-x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-0596-x)
29. Lauer, Sven. 2019. On the pragmatics of pragmatic slack. Proceedings of Sinn and Bedeutung (SuB) 16. 389–401. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lauer%2C+Sven%2E+2019%2E+On+the+pragmatics+of+pragmatic+slack%2E+Proceedings+of+Sinn+and+Bedeutung+%28SuB%29+16%2E+389%E2%80%93401%2E)
30. Lee, David. 1987. The semantics of just. Journal of Pragmatics 11. 377–398. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90138-X Liscombe, Jackson & Venditti, Jennifer & Hirschberg, Julia. 2003. Classifying subject ratings of emotional speech using acoustic features. In Proceedings of Eurospeech, 725–728. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21437/Eurospeech.2003-306 Manetta, Emily & Bhatia, Ian & Gramling, Robert & Rizzo, Donna & Tarbi, Elise & Agrawal, Manish. In prep. Narrating the Ineffable: Linguistic characteristics of talk about Awe-inducing experiences during Psychedelic Assisted Therapy. ms, Vermont Conversation Lab, University of Vermont. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90138-x)
31. Mann, William C. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Towards a functional theory of text organisation. Text 8(3). 243–281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ text.1.1988.8.3.243 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/)
32. McCready, Elin. 2010. [Varieties of conventional implicature](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/mccready-2010-varieties-conventional-implicature/). Semantics and Pragmatics 3. 1–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.8 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.8)
33. Morzycki, Marcin. 2012. Adjectival extremeness: Degree modification and contextually restricted scales. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30(2). 567–609. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11049-011-9162-0 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/)
34. Orenstein, Dina. 2015. A family of exclusives in Hebrew. Pages 96–106 of: ESSLLI 2015 Student Session. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17, Paris, 381–397. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Orenstein%2C+Dina%2E+2015%2E+A+family+of+exclusives+in+Hebrew%2E+Pages+96%E2%80%93106+of%3A+ESSLLI+2015+Student+Session%2E+Proceedings+of+Sinn+und+Bedeutung+17%2C+Paris%2C+381%E2%80%93397%2E)
35. Orenstein, Dina & Greenberg, Yael. 2010. The semantics and focus sensitivity of the Hebrew (unstressed) stam. In: Proceedings of IATL, vol. 26. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Orenstein%2C+Dina+%26+Greenberg%2C+Yael%2E+2010%2E+The+semantics+and+focus+sensitivity+of+the+Hebrew+%28unstressed%29+stam%2E+In%3A+Proceedings+of+IATL%2C+vol%2E+26%2E)
36. Potts, Christopher. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Potts%2C+Christopher%2E+2005%2E+The+Logic+of+Conventional+Implicatures%2E+Oxford+Studies+in+Theoretical+Linguistics%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
37. Potts, Christopher. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2). 165–197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.011 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/tl.2007.011)
38. Reblin, Maia & Wong, Ann & Arnoldy, Francesca & Pratt, Susanna & Dewoolkar, Advik & Gramling, Robert & Rizzo, Donna M. 2023. The StoryListening Project: Feasibility and Acceptability of a Remotely Delivered Intervention to Alleviate Grief during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Palliative Medicine 26(3). 327–333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2022.0261 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2022.0261)
39. Roberts, Craige. 1996/2012. [Information structure in discourse: towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/roberts-2012-information-structure-discourse-towards-integrated/). Semantics & Pragmatics 5(6). 1–69. Revision of 1998 version of paper originally circulated in 1996. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6)
40. Ring, Adele & Dowrick, Christopher & Humphries, Gerry & Salmon, Peter. 2004. Do patients with unexplained physical symptoms pressurise general practitioners for somatic treatment? A qualitative study. BMJ 328(7447). 1057. 2004 May 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmj.38057.622639.EE Rubio-Fernández & Paula, Wearing, Catherine & Carston, Robyn. 2015. Metaphor and Hyperbole: Testing the Continuity Hypothesis. Metaphor and Symbol 30(1). 24–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1080/10926488.2015.980699 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1136/)
41. Sauerland, Uli. 2012. The computation of scalar implicatures: Pragmatic, lexical or grammatical? Language and Linguistics Compass 6(1). 36–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.321 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.321)
42. Sperber Dan & Wilson, Diedre. 2008. A deflationary account of metaphors. In Gibbs, Ray (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 84–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511816802.007)
43. Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. In Cole, Peter (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, 315– 32. New York: Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_013 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_013)
44. Stalnaker, Robert. 1999. Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0198237073.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/0198237073.001.0001)
45. Thomas, William & Deo, Ashwini. 2020. The interaction of just with modified scalar predicates. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 24(2). 354–372. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Thomas%2C+William+%26+Deo%2C+Ashwini%2E+2020%2E+The+interaction+of+just+with+modified+scalar+predicates%2E+In+Proceedings+of+Sinn+und+Bedeutung+24%282%29%2E+354%E2%80%93372%2E)
46. Tsujimura, Toshiki. 1978. Keigo to Hikeigo [Honorifics and Anti-Honorifics]. In Kitahara, Yasuo (ed.), Keigo: Ronshuu Nihongo Kenkyuu 9 [Honorifics: Papers on Research in Japanese], 29, 218– 231. Tokyo: Yuuseido. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tsujimura%2C+Toshiki%2E+1978%2E+Keigo+to+Hikeigo+%5BHonorifics+and+Anti%2DHonorifics%5D%2E+In+Kitahara%2C+Yasuo+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Keigo%3A+Ronshuu+Nihongo+Kenkyuu+9+%5BHonorifics%3A+Papers+on+Research+in+Japanese%5D%2C+29%2C+218%E2%80%93+231%2E+Toky)
47. Veltman, Frank. 1996. Defaults in Update Semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25(3). 221– 61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00248150 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00248150)
48. Wiegand, Mia. 2017. Exclusive morphosemantics: Just and covert quantification. Proceedings of WCCFL 35. 419–429. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13109/zind.2010.35.4.429 [↗](https://doi.org/10.13109/zind.2010.35.4.429)
49. Windhearn (Weigand), Mia. 2021. Alternatives, Exclusivity & Underspecification. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Windhearn+%28Weigand%29%2C+Mia%2E+2021%2E+Alternatives%2C+Exclusivity+%26+Underspecification%2E+Ithaca%2C+NY%3A+Cornell+University+Dissertation%2E)
50. Woodgate, Roberta Lynn & Tennent, Pauline & Barriage, Sarah & Legras, Nicole. 2020. The lived experience of anxiety and the many facets of pain: A qualitative, arts-based approach. Canadian Journal of Pain 4(3). 6–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/24740527.2020.1720501 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/24740527.2020.1720501)

*Updated 2 November 2026*