Open Access
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 46, 2018
6e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 15001
Number of page(s) 25
Section Conférences invitées
Published online 09 July 2018
  1. Babby, L. 2001. The genitive of negation: a unified analysis. In Franks S., T. King & M. Yadroff (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics, The Bloomington meeting 2000. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. 39-55. [Google Scholar]
  2. Creissels, Denis. 2007. Impersonal and anti-impersonal constructions: a typological approach. Ms, Université de Lyon. [Google Scholar]
  3. Creissels, Denis. 2016. Transitivity, valency and voice. Cours à l'École d'Été Européenne de Typologie Linguistique (Porquerolles, septembre 2016). [Google Scholar]
  4. Creissels, Denis. 2018a. Existential predication and transposssessive constructions in typological and diachronic perspective. Annual meeting of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft. Stuttgart, 7-9 March 2018. [Google Scholar]
  5. [Google Scholar]
  6. Creissels, Denis. 2018b. The Obligatory Coding Principle in diachronic perspective. In Sonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zûñiga (eds.). Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony. John Benjamins. 61-112. [Google Scholar]
  7. [Google Scholar]
  8. Creissels, Denis, Sokhna Bao Diop, Alain-Christian Bassène, Mame Thierno Cissé, Alexander Cobbinah, El Hadji Dieye, Dame Ndao, Sylvie Nouguier-Voisin, Nicolas Quint, Marie Renaudier, Adjaratou Sall & uillaume Segerer. 2015. L'impersonnalité dans les langues de la région sénégambienne. Africana Linguistica 21. 29-86. [Google Scholar]
  9. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cummins, S. 2000. The Unaccusative Hypothesis and the Impersonal Construction of French. Canadian Journal of Linguistics / Revue canadienne de linguistique 45(3-4). 225-251. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dixon, Robert M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald. 2000. Introduction. In Robert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Changing Valency : Case Studies in Transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1-29. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ernout, A. & F. Thomas. 1951. Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck. [Google Scholar]
  13. Fedriani, Chiara. 2014. Experiential constructions in Latin: A synchronic and diachronic study. Bril. [Google Scholar]
  14. Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: a Functional-typological Introduction 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: a Functional-typological Introduction 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  16. Guiraud-Weber, Marguerite. 1984. Les propositions sans nominatif en russe moderne. Paris : Institut d'Etudes Slaves. [Google Scholar]
  17. Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3). 663-687. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hériau, M. 1980. Le verbe impersonnel en français moderne. Lille: Atelier de reproduction de theses, Université de Lille III. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hopper Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251-299. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kittilä Seppo. 2002. Transitivity : towards a comprehensive typology. Turku: Åbo Akademis Tryckeri. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lambrecht, Knud. 2000. When subjects behave like objects: an analysis of the merging of S and O in sentence focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language 24. 611-682. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lazard, Gilbert. 1994. L'actance. Paris : PUF. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lazard, Gilbert. 1997. Review of Ergativity by R. M. W. Dixon. Linguistic Typology 1. 243-268. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lazard, Gilbert. 2003. Le sujet en perspective interlinguistique. in J.-M. Merle (éd.), Le sujet. Gap-Paris : Ophrys. 15-28. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lazard, Gilbert. 2006. La quête des invariants interlangues. La linguistique est-elle une science ?, Paris : Champion. [Google Scholar]
  26. Lazard, Gilbert. 2008. Nouvelles remarques au sujet du sujet. BSL 103(1). 111-121. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lazard, Gilbert. 2009. Qu'est-ce qu'un sujet ? La linguistique 45(1). 151-158. [Google Scholar]
  28. Malchukov, Andrej & Akio Ogawa. 2011. 'Towards a typology of impersonal constructions: A semanctic map approach'. In Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds.), Impersonal constructions, a cross-linguistic perspective. 19-56. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  29. Malchukov, Andrej & Anna Siewierska (eds.). 2011. Impersonal constructions, a cross-linguistic perspective. 19-56. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  30. Næss Åshild, 2007, Prototypical Transitivity, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Ruwet, Nicolas. 1990. Des expressions météorologiques. Le Français Moderne 58. 43-97. [Google Scholar]
  32. Siewierka, Anna. 2008. 'Introduction: Impersonalization: An agent-based vs. a subject-based perspective'. Transactions of the Philological Society 106(2). 115-137. (Special issue on Impersonal Constructions in Grammatical Theory, guest-edited by Anna Siewierska) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1985. Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21(2). 385-396. [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.