Open Access
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 38, 2017
Connaissances et Usages en L2 / Knowledge and Usage in L2
Article Number 00006
Number of page(s) 24
Published online 01 December 2017
  1. Amidon, A. (1976). Children’s Understanding of Sentences with Contingent Relations: Why Are Temporal and Conditional Connectives so Difficult? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 22, 423-437. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bates, E. (1976). Language and Context: The Acquisition of Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown, A., Gullberg, M. (2011). Bidirectional cross-linguistic influence in event conceptualization? Expressions of Path among Japanese learners of English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14 (1), 79-94. DOI: 10.1017/S1366728910000064. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Carroll, M., Weimar, K., Flecken, M., Lambert, M., Stutterheim, C. von. (2012). Tracing trajectories. Motion event construal by advanced L2 French-English and L2 French-German speakers. Language, Interaction and Acquisition (LIA) 3:2, 202-230. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Champaud, C., Bassano, D., Hickmann, M. (1993). Modalité épistémique et discours rapporté chez l’enfant français. In N. Dittmar & A. Reich (Eds.), Modalité et acquisition des langues (pp. 185-209). Berlin: The Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cheng, P. W., Novick, L. R. (1991). Causes versus enabling conditions. Cognition 40, 83-120. [Google Scholar]
  7. Costa, A., Foucart, A., Arnon, I., Aparici, M., Apesteguia, J. (2014). “Piensa” twice: On the foreign language effect in decision making. Cognition 130 (2), 236-254. [Google Scholar]
  8. Croft, W., Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Declerck, R. (2006). The Grammar of the English Tense System: A Comprehensive Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67/3, 547-619. [Google Scholar]
  11. Dray, K., Uphill, M. A. (2009). A survey of athletes counterfactual thinking: Precursors, prevalence, and consequences. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review 5 (1), 16-26. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Usage-based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  13. Gilabert, R., Barón, J., Levkina, M. (2011). Manipulating task complexity across task types and modes. In Robinson P. (Ed.), Second Language Task Complexity. Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 105-138. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Harris, P. L., German, T., Mills, P. (1996). Children’s use of counterfactual thinking in causal reasoning. Cognition 61, 233-259. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hume, D. (1739/1992). Treatise of Human Nature. New York: Prometheus. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hung, P. H. (2012). L’acquisition de l’expression de la spatialité en mandarin langue étrangère par des apprenants francophones. Ph. Dissertation under the supervision of Daniel Véronique. Aix-Marseille University. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic and A. Tversky, Judgment under uncertainty, (pp. 201-208). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Keysar, B., Hayakawa, S., An, S. G. (2012). The foreign language effect: Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision biases. Psychological science 23, 661-668. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lewis D. (1973/1976), Counterfactuals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Mackie, J. L. (1974). Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  21. Mandel, D. R. & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Counterfactual thinking and ascriptions of cause and preventability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71(3): 450–463. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.450 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Miller, D. T., Gunasegaram, S. (1990). Temporal Order and the Perceived Mutability of Events: Implications for Blame Assignment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59, No. 6, 1111-1118. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Piaget, J. (1963). La construction du réel chez l’enfant. Paris : Delchaux et Niestlé. [Google Scholar]
  24. Real Academia Española: Banco de datos CORDE en línea. Corpus diacrónico del español. [Consulté le 24/11/2015]. [Google Scholar]
  25. Reilly, J. S. (1982). The Acquisition of Conditionals in English. Ph. Dissertation, Los Angeles: University of California. [Google Scholar]
  26. Repiso, I. (2014). La production des scenarios contrefactuels par des apprenants adultes hispanophones : quelques effets d’étrangeté liés à l’emploi du conditionnel en français langue étrangère. Language, Interaction, Acquisition 5:2, 252-281. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Repiso, I. (2013). Parlons de l’irréel. L’expression de la contrefactualité en français, en espagnol et en italien et en français langue étrangère par des hispanophones et des italophones. Ph. Dissertation under the supervision of Daniel Véronique. Aix-Marseille University & Universidad de Salamanca. [Google Scholar]
  28. Rey-Debove, J., Rey, A. (2004). Le Petit Robert. Paris : Le Robert. [Google Scholar]
  29. Rittle-Johnson, B., Wagner Alibali, M. (1999). Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge of Mathematics: Does One Lead to the Other? Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 91, No. 1, 175-189. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Schalley, A. C. (2004). Cognitive Modeling and Verbal Semantics. A Representational Framework Based on Unified Modeling Language. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Slobin, D. (1996). From “Thought and Language” to “Thinking for Speaking”. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 70-96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  32. Summerville, A., Roese, N. J. (2008). Dare to compare: Fact-based versus simulation-based comparison in daily life. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44, 664-671. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  34. Tournadre, N., LaPolla, R. (2014). Towards a new approach to evidentiality: Issues and directions for research. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  35. Van Valin, R. D., LaPolla, R. J. (1997). Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Wells, G. L., Gavanski, I. (1989). Mental simulation of causality. Journal of personality and social psychology 56 (2), 161-169. [CrossRef] [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.