Open Access
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 46, 2018
6e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 14008
Number of page(s) 15
Section Syntaxe
Published online 09 July 2018
  1. Abeillé, A. & Barrier, N. (2004). Enriching a French treebank. In Proceedings of Language Ressources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), Lisbonne. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abeillé, A., Clément, L. & Toussenel, F. (2003). Building a treebank for French. In Treebanks. Dordrecht: Kluwer. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Abeillé, A. & Godard, D. (2004). De la légèreté en syntaxe. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, XCIX(1), 69-106. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Abeillé, A. & Godard, D. (2006). La légèreté en français comme déficience de mobilité. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 29(1), 11–24. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Agresti, A. (2007). An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  7. Arnold, J. E. (1998). Reference Form and Discourse Patterns. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford. [Google Scholar]
  8. Arnold, J. E. (2010). How Speakers Refer: The Role of Accessibility. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(4), 187–203. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Arnold, J. E., Wasow, T., Losongco, A. & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76(1), 28–55. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bates, D., Maechler, M. & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using s4 classes. [Google Scholar]
  11. Behaghel, O. (1909). Von deutscher Wortstellung [de l’ordre des mots en allemand]. Indogermanische Forschungen, 25, 110–142. [Google Scholar]
  12. Berrendonner, A. (1987). L’ordre des mots et ses fonctions. Travaux de linguistique, 14/15, 9–19. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bijankhan, M. (2004). Naqsh-e peykare-hā-ye zabāni dar neveshtan-e dastur-e zabān: mo’areffi-ye yek narmafzār-e rāyāne-i [le rôle de corpus pour écrire une grammaire : présentation d’un logiciel]. Majalle-ye zabanshenāsi, 19(2), 48–67. [Google Scholar]
  14. Blinkenberg, A. (1928). L’ordre des mots en français moderne. Première partie. Copenhague: Høst & Søn. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bock, J. K. & Levelt, W. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M. Gernsbacher, Ed., Handbook of psycholinguistics, p. 945–984. New York: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In C. N. Li, Ed., Subject and Topic, p. 27–55. New York: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chomsky, N. (1975). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  18. Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and Language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Press Jovanich. [Google Scholar]
  19. De Smedt, K. (1994). Parallelism in incremental sentence generation. In G. Adriaens & U. Hahn, Eds., Parallel natural language processing, p. 421–447. Norwood: Ablex. [Google Scholar]
  20. Drummond, A. (2013). Ibex farm. Version 0.3. [Google Scholar]
  21. Faghiri, P., Samvelian, P. & Hemforth, B. (2014). Accessibility and word order: The case of ditransitive constructions in Persian. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, p. 217–237. S. Müller. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Image, Language, Brain: Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium, p. 95–126. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  24. T. Givón, Ed. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam et Philadelphie: John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  25. Grant, M., Abeillé, A., Crabbé, B. & Thuilier, J. (2014). The role of conceptual accessibility on word order alternations in french: Evidence from sentence recall. Poster présenté à International Workshop on Language Production 2014. [Google Scholar]
  26. Gundel, J. K. (1988). Universals of topic-comment structure. In M. Hammond, E. A. Moravcsik & J. R. Wirth, Eds., Studies in Syntactic Typology: John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2). [Google Scholar]
  28. Hawkins, J. (1994). A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hawkins, J. (2004). Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. ACL-MIT Press series in natural-language processing. Bradford Books. [Google Scholar]
  31. Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole, Ed., Radical Pragmatics, p. 223–256. New York: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD thesis, Department of Linguistics, MIT. [Google Scholar]
  33. Schmitt, C. (1987a). à propos de l’impact de la sémantique sur la séquence des compléments d’objets en français moderne. Travaux de linguistique et de littérature, 25(1), 283–298. [Google Scholar]
  34. Schmitt, C. (1987b). Sémantique et prédétermination de l’ordre des mots en français contemporain. Travaux de linguistique, 14/15, 21–31. [Google Scholar]
  35. Stallings, L. M. & MacDonald, M. C. (2011). It’s not Just the “Heavy NP”: Relative Phrase Length Modulates the Production of Heavy-NP Shift. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 40(3), 177–187. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Stallings, L. M., MacDonald, M. C. & O’Seaghdha, P. G. (1998). Phrasal ordering constraints in sentence production: Phrase length and verb disposition in heavy-NP shift. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(3), 392–417. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Thuilier, J. (2012a). Contraintes préférentielles et ordre des mots en français. PhD thesis, Université Paris Diderot. [Google Scholar]
  38. Thuilier, J. (2012b). Lemme verbal et classe sémantique dans l’ordonnancement des compléments postverbaux. In F. Neveu, V. Muni Toke, P. Blumenthal, T. Klingler, P. Ligas, S. Prévost & S. Teston-Bonnard, Eds., Actes du 3ème Congrés Mondial de Linguistique Française 2012 (CMLF 2012), p. 2451–2469. [Google Scholar]
  39. Thuilier, J., Abeillé, A. & Crabbé, B. (2014). Ordering preferences for postverbal complements in french. In Tyne, André, Benzitoun, Boulton & Greub, Eds., French through Corpora: Ecological and Data-driven Perspectives in French Language Studies, p. 77–102. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wasow, T. (1997). Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change, 9, 81–105. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. Wasow, T. (2002). Postverbal Behavior. CSLI publications. [Google Scholar]
  42. Wasow, T. & Arnold, J. (2005). Intuitions in linguistic argumentation. Lingua, 115(11), 1481–1496. [Google Scholar]
  43. Yamashita, H. & Chang, F. (2001). ’Long before short’ preferences in the production of a head final language. Cognition, 81(2). [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.