Open Access
Issue
SHS Web of Conferences
Volume 27, 2016
5e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 01001
Number of page(s) 20
Section Conférences invitées
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20162701001
Published online 04 July 2016
  1. Adam, J.M. 1985. Le texte narratif, précis d’analyse textuelle. Poitiers: Fernand Nathan. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ailhaud, E., Chenu, F., Jisa, H. soumis. La phrase : de la maîtrise de ses conventions raphiques à sa pertinence cognitive. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ailhaud, E., Chenu, F., Jisa, H. 2015. A developmental perspective on the units of written French. In Perera, J., Aparici, M., Rosado, E. & Salas, N. (Eds), Written and spoken language development across the lifespan: Essays in honour of Liliana Tolchinsky. Springer, 287-305. [Google Scholar]
  4. Aisenman, R. et Berman, R. 2000. Rethinking lexical analysis. Developing Literacy Across Genres, Modalities, and Languages 3: 187-196. [Google Scholar]
  5. Aksu-Koç, A. et Küntay, A. 2001. Reformulating causal relations while retelling narratives: evidence from Turkish. Papier présenté au Colloque Acquisition et construction du sens dans une perspective interlangue, Paris, 20-21 décembre 2001. [Google Scholar]
  6. Allen, S., Skarabela, B. et Hughes, M. 2008. Using corpora to examine discourse effects in syntax. Trends in language acquisition research, Corpora in language acquisition research 6: 99-138. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Argerich, N. et Tolchinsky, L. 2000. On a definition of lexical items in written and spoken texts. Developing Literacy Across Genres, Modalities and Languages 3: 197-204. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ariel, M. 1990. Accessing Noun Phrases Antecedents. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ariel, M. 1996. Referring expressions and the +/- coreference distinction. In Fretheim, T., Gundel, J. (eds.), Reference and referent accessibility. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 13-37. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ashby, William J., 1992. The variable use of on versus tu/vous. Journal of French Language Studies, 2: 135-157. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Atlani, Françoise, 1984. On l’illusionniste. In : A. Grésillon. et J-L ; Lebrave, La langue au ras du texte, 13-29. Lille : Presses Universitaires de Lille. [Google Scholar]
  12. Auer, P. (2009). On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31: 1-13. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bellert, I. 1971. On a condition of the coherence of texts. Semiotica 4: 253-288. [Google Scholar]
  14. Berman, R. 1997. Preliterate knowledge of language. In Portecovo, C. (eds.), Writing development: an interdisciplinary view. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 61-76. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Berman, R. 2000. Thematic perspectives on how children talk about interpersonal conflict. Developing Literacy Across Genres, Modalities, And Languages 3: 65-76. [Google Scholar]
  16. Berman, R. 2007. Developing linguistic knowledge and language use across adolescence, In Hoff, E., Shatz, M. (Eds.). Handbook of Language Development. London: Blackwell, 346-367. [Google Scholar]
  17. Berman, R. et Katzenberger, I. 2004. Form and function in introducing narrative and expository texts: A developmental perspective. Discourse Processes 381: 57-94. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Berman, R. et Nir-Sagiv, B. 2004. Linguistic indicators of inter-genre differentiation in later language development. Journal of Child Language 31: 339-380. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Berman, R. et Nir-Sagiv, B. 2007. Comparing narrative and expository text construction across adolescence: A developmental paradox. Discourse Processes 43: 79-120. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Berman, R. et Ravid, D. 2009. Becoming a literate language user oral and written text construction across adolescence. In Olson, D., Torrance, N. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 92-111. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Berman, R. et Slobin, D. 1994. Relating events in narrative: a crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  22. Berman, R. et Verhoeven, L. 2002. Cross linguistic perspectives on the development of text-production abilities in speech and writing. Written Language and Literacy 5 Vol. 1. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Berman, R. et Verhoeven, L. 2002. Cross linguistic perspectives on the development of text-production abilities in speech and writing. Written Language and Literacy 5 Vol. 2. [Google Scholar]
  24. Biber, D. 1988. Variations across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Blanche-Benveniste, C. 1983. L’importance du français parlé pour la description du français tout court. Recherches sur le Français Parlé 5: 23-45. [Google Scholar]
  26. Blanche-Benveniste, C. 1985. La langue du dimanche. Reflets 14: 42-43. [Google Scholar]
  27. Blanche-Benveniste, C. 1990. Le français parlé. Paris: Edition du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. [Google Scholar]
  28. Blanche-Benveniste, C. 1995. Le semblable et le dissemblable en syntaxe. Recherches sur le Français Parlé 13: 7-32. [Google Scholar]
  29. Blanche-Benveniste, C. 2000. Approche de la langue parlée en français. Gap: Ophrys. [Google Scholar]
  30. Boersma P. et Weenink D. 2009. Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.1.05) [Programme informatique], site internet : http://www.praat.org/. [Google Scholar]
  31. Boscolo, P. 1990. The construction of expository text. First Language 10: 217-230. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Britton, B. 1994. Understanding expository text: Building mental structures to induce insights. In Gernsbacher, M. (Eds.). Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego, California: Academic Press, 641-674. [Google Scholar]
  33. Bruner, J. 1986. Actual Minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  34. Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  35. Charolles, M. 1978. Introduction aux problèmes de la cohérence des textes. Langue Française 38: 7-41. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Chenu F., Jisa H. et Mazur-Palandre A. 2012. Développement de la connectivité syntaxique à travers deux types de textes à l’oral et à l’écrit. In F. Neveu, V. Muni Toke, P. Blumenthal, T. Klingler, P. Ligas, S. Prévost, S. Teston-Bonnard (Eds.), Actes de la Xème Congrès Mondial de la Linguistique Française (CMLF 2012), 4-7 Juillet, Lyon : Institut de Linguistique Française ; EDP Sciences, 1591-1605. [Google Scholar]
  37. Chesnet, D. et Alamargot, D. 2005. Analyses en temps réel des activités oculaires et graphomotrices du scripteur: intérêt du dispositif ‘Eye and Pen’. L’Année Psychologique 105: 477-520. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. Clark, H. et Haviland, S. 1977. Comprehension and the Given-New contract. In Freedle, R. (Eds.), Discourse Production and Comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1-40. [Google Scholar]
  39. Du Bois, J. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63: 805-855. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. Du Bois, J. 2003. Argument Structure: Grammar in use. In Du Bois, J., Kumpf, L., Ashby, W. (eds.), Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 11-60. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. Fayol, M. 1990. La production de textes écrits, Introduction à l’approche cognitive. Education Permanente 102: 21-30. [Google Scholar]
  42. Fayol, M. 1996. La production d’écrits narratifs : approche de psycholinguistique textuelle chez l’enfant et l’adulte. In David, J. et Plane, S. (éds.) L’apprentissage de l’écriture de l’école au collège. Paris : PUF, 9-36. [Google Scholar]
  43. Fayol, M. 1997. Des idées au texte : psychologie cognitive de la production verbale orale et écrite. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. [Google Scholar]
  44. Gadet, F. 1989. Le français ordinaire. Paris: Armand colin éditeur. [Google Scholar]
  45. Gadet, F. 1996. Une distinction bien fragile : oral/écrit. TRANEL (Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique) 25: 13-27. [Google Scholar]
  46. Gayraud, F. 2000. Le développement de la différenciation oral/écrit vu à travers le lexique. Thèse de Doctorat, Université Lumière, Lyon 2. [Google Scholar]
  47. Gayraud, F., Jisa, H. et Viguié, A. 1999. The development of syntactic packaging in French children’s written and spoken texts. Developing Literacy Across Genres, Modalities, And Languages 1: 169-181. [Google Scholar]
  48. Gayraud, F., Jisa, H. et Viguié, A. 2001. Utilisation des outils cohésifs comme indice de sensibilité au registre : une étude développementale. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère 14: 3-24. [Google Scholar]
  49. Gernsbacher, M. 1990. Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  50. Gernsbacher, M. et Hargreaves, D. 1988. Accessing sentence participants: the advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language 27: 699-717. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  51. Halliday, M.A.K. et Hasan, R. 1976-1989. Cohesion in English. Londres: Longman group limited. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hawkins, J. 1983. Word order universals. New York: Academic press. [Google Scholar]
  53. Hickmann, M. 2003. Children’s Discourse: Person, Space and Time across Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  54. Hickmann, M. et Hendriks, H. 1999. Cohesion and anaphora in children’s narratives: a comparison of English, French, German and Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Child Language 26: 419-452. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  55. Hickmann, M., Hendriks, H., Roland, F. et Liang, J. 1996. The marking of new information in children’s narratives: a comparison of English, French, German, and Mandarin Chinese. Journal of child Languages 23: 591-619. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  56. Jisa, H. & Viguié, A. 2005. A developmental perspective on the role of on in written and spoken expository texts in French. Journal of Pragmatics, 37: 125-142. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  57. Jisa, H. 1998. Relative clauses in French children’s narrative text. Journal of Child Language 25: 623-652. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  58. Jisa, H. 2000. Increasing cohesion in narratives: a developmental study of maintaining and reintroducing subjects in French. Linguistics 38: 591-620. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  59. Jisa, H. 2004. Growing into academic French. Later Language Development: Typological and psycholinguistic Perspectives, Collection Trends in Language Acquisition Research (TILAR) 3: 135-162. [Google Scholar]
  60. Jisa, H. et Mazur, A. 2006. L’expression de la causalité : une étude développementale. Actes Journée d’étude : Des savoirs savants aux savoirs enseignés. Université Paris X, Nanterre : Presses universitaires de Namur, 33-60, 29 Mars 2006. [Google Scholar]
  61. Johansson, V. 1999. Word frequencies in speech and Writing: a study of expository discourse. Genre and modality in developing discourse abilities 1: 182-198. [Google Scholar]
  62. Katzenberger, I. 2004. The development of clause packaging in spoken and written texts. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1921-1948. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  63. Khorounjaia, E. et Tolchinsky, L. 2004. Discursive constraints on the lexical realization of arguments in Spanish, In Berman, R. (Eds.). Language Development Across Childhood and Adolescence, Collection Trends in Language Acquisition Research, (TILAR), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 83-110. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  64. Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 1999. On a tué le président! The nature of passives and ultra-indefinites. In: Barbara Fox, Dan Jurafsky and Laura A. Michaelis, Cognition and function in language, 235-251. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [Google Scholar]
  65. Laberge, Suzanne and Gillain Sankoff, 1980. Anything you can do. In: Gillian Sankoff., The social life of language, 271-293. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. [Google Scholar]
  66. Laberge, Suzanne. 1978. The changing distribution of indeterminate pronouns in discourse. In: R. W. Shuy and J. Shnukal, Language use and the use of language. Washington: Georgetown University Press. [Google Scholar]
  67. Labov, W. 1978/1993. Le parler ordinaire, la langue dans les ghettos noirs des états-unis. Paris: Les éditions de minuit. [Google Scholar]
  68. Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus and mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  69. Langacker, R. 2000. A Dynamic Usage-Based Model. In Michael Barlow et Suzanne Kemmer (éds.), Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1-63. [Google Scholar]
  70. Levelt, W. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge/Massachussetts: The MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  71. MacWhinney, B. (2002) Language emergence. In Burmeister, P., Piske, T., and Rohde, A. (Eds.) An integrated view of language development - Papers in honor of Henning Wode. pp. 17-42. Trier: Wissenshaftliche Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  72. Mazur Palandre, A., Fayol, M. & Jisa, H. 2012. Information Flow across Modalities and Text Types. In Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology, Berninger, V. (éd), Psychology Press/Taylor Francis Group, 423-437. [Google Scholar]
  73. Mazur-Palandre A. et Jisa, H. (2012). La complexité lexicale des syntagmes nominaux : Une étude développementale. Enfance, 4, 359-371. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  74. Mazur-Palandre, A. & Jisa, H. 2012. Introduire et développer l’information : une acquisition tardive? Cognitique, 7 (cogitextes.revues.org/500) [Google Scholar]
  75. Mazur-Palandre, A. 2007. Later language development: syntactic packaging in written and spoken French. Paper presented at The Second Oxford Linguistics Postgraduate Conference, Oxford. [Google Scholar]
  76. Mazur-Palandre, A. 2008. Referential cohesion in written expository and narrative: A developmental study. Sigwriting 2008, The 11th international conference of the EARLI, social interest group on writing, Lund University. [Google Scholar]
  77. Mazur-Palandre, A. 2009. Le flux de l’information, aspects syntaxiques et discursifs : Une étude fonctionnaliste et développementale. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Lyon. [Google Scholar]
  78. Mazur-Palandre, A. et Jisa, H. 2012. La lexicalité des productions orales et écrites : Une étude développementale. Enfance. [Google Scholar]
  79. McCutchen, D. 2011. From novice to expert: Implications of language skills and writing-relevant knowledge for memory during the development of writing skill. Journal of Writing Research, v. 3, 51-68. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  80. Mosenthal, P. 1985. Defining the expository discourse continuum, toward a taxinomy of expository text. Poetics 14: 387-414. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  81. Nippold, M. A. et Scott, C. M. 2009. Expository discourse in children, adolescents, and adults. London: Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  82. Ravid, D. 2000. NP complexity in the development of text writing. Developing Literacy Across Genres, Modalities and Languages 3: 163-170. [Google Scholar]
  83. Ravid, D. 2002. Paper about NP analysis: conceptualization and methodological issues. Tel Aviv University. [Google Scholar]
  84. Ravid, D. 2005. Emergence of linguistic complexity in later language development: evidence from expository text construction. In Ravid, D., Shyldkrot, H.B. (Eds.), Perspectives on language and language development. Essays in Honor of Ruth A. Berman. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 337-355. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  85. Ravid, D. 2006. Semantic development in textual contexts during the school years: Noun Scale analyses. Journal of Child Language 33: 791–821. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  86. Ravid, D. et Berman, R. 2012. Developing noun phrase complexity across adolescence: A text-embedded analysis. First Language 30 (1): 1-29. [Google Scholar]
  87. Reilly, J., Jisa, H., Baruch, E. & Berman, R. 2002. Propositional attitudes. Journal of Written Language and Literacy 5:2, 183-218. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  88. Reinhart, T. 1980. Conditions for text coherence, Poetics Today 1: 161-180. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  89. Sanford, A. et Garrod, S. 1981a. Understanding written language, New York: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  90. Sanford, A. et Garrod, S. 1981b. Vers la construction d‘un modèle psychologique de la compréhension du langage écrit. Bulletin de psychologie 35: 643-648. [Google Scholar]
  91. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. Advances in applied psycholinguistics, 1, 142. [Google Scholar]
  92. Schneuwly, B. 1988. Le langage écrit chez l’enfant, Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé. [Google Scholar]
  93. Strömquivst, S., Johansson, V., Kriz, S., Ragnarsdöttir, H., Aisenman, R. et Ravid, D. 2002. Toward a crosslinguistic comparison of lexical quanta in speech and writing. Written Language and Literacy 5, 45-67 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  94. Strömqvist, S., Holmqvist, K. Johansson, V., Karlsson, H. et Wengelin, A. 2006. What key stroke logging can reveal about writing. In Sullivan, K. et Lindgren, E. (éds.) Computer key-stroke logging and writing : methods and applications. Studies in writing, 18 : 45-72. [Google Scholar]
  95. Strömqvist, S., Nordqvist, A. et Wengelin, A. 2004. Writing the frog story : developmental and cross-modal perspectives. In Ströpqvist, S. et Verhoeven, L. (éds) Relating events in narrative : typological and contextual perspectives. Mahwah, New Jersey : Erlbaum, 359-394. [Google Scholar]
  96. Tomasello. Michael. 2012. The usage-based theory of language acquisition. In Bavin, E. éd., The Cambridge handbook of child language. Cambridge University Press. pp. 69-88 [Google Scholar]
  97. Viguié-Simon, A. 2001. Développement de la connectivité selon le type textuel et le mode de production au cours de l’adolescence. Thèse de Doctorat, Université Lumière, Lyon. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.