Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 78, 2020
7e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 09007
Number of page(s) 15
Section Phonétique, Phonologie et Interfaces
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20207809007
Published online 04 September 2020
  1. Akinci, M.-A. (2013–2014). Eléments de cours de turc, Expérience d’Apprentissage d’une Langue Entièrement Nouvelle. Cours d’enseignement à distance, Licence 3 de Sciences du Langage FLE, Université de Rouen Normandie. [Google Scholar]
  2. Andreeva, B., Demenko, G., Wolska, M., Möbius, B., Zimmerer, F., Jügler, J., Jastrzebska, M. et Trouvain, J. (2014). Comparison of Pitch Range and Pitch Variation in Slavic and Germanic Languages. Proceedings of Speech Prosody, 7, 776–780. [Google Scholar]
  3. Boersma, P. et Weenink, D. (2012). Praat: Doing Phonetics by computer (version 5. 3.56).Logiciel d’analyse acoustique de la parole. Institut de Sciences Phonétiques, Université d’Amsterdam, disponible et téléchargeable en ligne à l’adresse suivante: http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall (2nd ed.). [Google Scholar]
  4. Campione, E. et Véronis, J. (1998). A statistical study of pitch target points in five languages. 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP’98), Sidney, 1391–1394. Corder, S. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5 (4), 161–170. [Google Scholar]
  5. Corder, S. (1974). Indiosyncratic errors and Error Analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 9 (2), 147–159. [Google Scholar]
  6. Derwing, T. M. et Munro, M. J. (2009). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to communication. Language Teaching, 42 (4), 476–490. [Google Scholar]
  7. Detey, S. et Le Gac, D. (2010). Le français de référence: quels locuteurs? Detey, S., Durand, J., Laks, B. et Lyche, C. (2010). Les variétés du français parlé dans l’espace francophone. Paris: Ophrys, 167–180. [Google Scholar]
  8. Di Cristo, A. (1998). Intonation in French. Hirst, D. et Di Cristo, A. (eds). Intonation Systems: A Survey of Twenty Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 195–218. [Google Scholar]
  9. Di Cristo, A. (2016). Les musiques du français parlé. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter, Coll. Études de Linguistique Française. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dubëda, T. (2012). L’accent initial dans le français des apprenants tchèques: aspects distributionnels et intonatifs. Etudes de prosodie contrastive: le cas du français et du tchèque. Université Charles de Prague: Karolinum, 86–97. [Google Scholar]
  11. Dupoux, E., Pallier, C., Sebastiân-Gallés, N. et Mehler, J. (1997). A destressing ‘deafness’ in French? Journal of Memory and Language, 36 (3), 406–421. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dupoux, E., Peperkamp, S. et Sebastiân-Gallés, N. (2001). A robust method to study stress ‘deafness’. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110 (3), 1606–1618. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dupoux, E., Peperkamp, S. et Sebastiân-Gallés, N. (2010). Limits of/on bilingualism revisited: Stress ‘deafness’ in simultaneous French-Spanish bilinguals. Cognition, 114 (2), 266–275. [Google Scholar]
  14. Dupoux, E., Sebastiân-Gallés, N., Navarrete, E. et Peperkamp, S. (2008). Persistent stress ‘deafness’: The case of French learners of Spanish. Cognition, 106, 682–706. [Google Scholar]
  15. Eckman, F. R. (1977). Markedness and the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, 315–330. [Google Scholar]
  16. Eckman, F. R. (2008). Typological Markedness and Second Language Phonology. Edwards, J. G. H. et Zampini, M. L. (eds) (2008). Phonology and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 95–115. [Google Scholar]
  17. Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 399423. [Google Scholar]
  18. Flege, J. E. (1992). Speech Learning in a Second Language. Ferguson, C., Menn, L. et Stoel- Gammon C., (eds). Phonological Development: Models, Research and Implications. Timonium, MD: York Press, 565–604. [Google Scholar]
  19. Fonagy, I. (1979). L’accent français: accent probabilitaire (Dynamique d’un changement prosodique). Fonagy, I. et Léon, P. (Dir.). L’accent en français contemporain. Studia Phonetica, 15, Paris: Didier, 123–233. [Google Scholar]
  20. Garde, P. (1968). L’accent. Paris: PUF. [Google Scholar]
  21. Goksel, A. et Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: a comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 201–223. [Google Scholar]
  24. Horgues, C. (2010). Prosodie de l’accent français en anglais et perception par des auditeurs anglophones. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Paris Diderot Paris 7. [Google Scholar]
  25. Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociallinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23, 83–103. [Google Scholar]
  26. Jun, S.-A. et Fougeron, C. (1995). The accentual phrase and the prosodic structure of French. Proceedings International Congress of the Phonetic Sciences, 13 (2), 722–725. [Google Scholar]
  27. Jun, S.-A. et Fougeron, C. (1998/ 2000). A phonological model of French intonation. Botinis, A. (ed.). Intonation: Models, analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 209–242. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kawaguchi, Y., Yilmaz, S. et Uras Yilmaz, A. (2005). Intonation Patterns of Turkish Interrogatives. Linguistic Informatics IV, Prosody and Sentence Structures, 21st Century COE: Center of Usage- Based Linguistic Informatics, Graduate School of Area and Culture Studies, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kijak, A. (2009). How stressful is L2 stress? A cross-linguistic study of L2 perception and production of metrical systems. Ph. D. Thesis, Graduate School of Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  30. Konrot, A. K. (1981). Towards Understanding Turkish Stress: an acoustic and perceptual study. PH. D. Thesis, University of Essex. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish (Descriptive grammars). London & New York: Routledge, Series Editor: Bernard Comrie, University of Southern California. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ladd, D.R. (1996/2008). Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press. [Google Scholar]
  34. Levi, S. V. (2002). Intonation in Turkish: the realization of noun compounds and genitive possessive NPs. UW ms, Washington University. [Google Scholar]
  35. Levi, S. V. (2005). Acoustic correlates of lexical accent in Turkish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 35/1, 73–97. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lewis, G. L. (1967/2000). Turkish grammar. Oxford - New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  37. Mennen, I. (2007). Phonological and phonetic influences in non-native intonation. Gut, U. et Trouvain, J. (éds). Non-Native Prosody, Phonetic Description and Teaching Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 53–76. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mennen, I., Schaeffler, F. et Docherty, G. (2012). Cross-language differences in fundamental frequency range: A comparison of English & German. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131 (3), 2249–2260. [Google Scholar]
  39. Nespor, M. et Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. [Google Scholar]
  40. Nguyen, T. & Ingram, J. (2005). Vietnamese acquisition of English word stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39 (2), 309–319. [Google Scholar]
  41. Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1980). The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Google Scholar]
  42. Pierrehumbert, J. B. et Beckman, M. (1988). Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. [Google Scholar]
  43. Post, B. (2000). Tonal and phrasal structures in French intonation. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. [Google Scholar]
  44. Rasier, L. et Hiligsmann, Ph. (2007). Prosodic Transfer from L1 to L2. Theoretical and methodological issues. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 28, 41–66. [Google Scholar]
  45. Rossi, M. (1980). Le français, langue sans accent ? Fonagy, I. et Léon, P. R. L’accent en français contemporain. Studia Phonetica, 15, Montréal-Paris-Bruxelles: Didier, 13–51. [Google Scholar]
  46. Rossi, M. (1999). L’intonation, le système du français: description et modélisation. Paris: Ophrys. [Google Scholar]
  47. Santiago, F. (2016). La prosodie des syntagmes intonatifs en français L2: une étude perceptive. Langages, 202 (2), 13–34. [Google Scholar]
  48. Schwab, S. (2012). Do native Spanish speakers transfer accentual properties from Spanish to French L2? Proceedings of Speech Prosody, 6, 330–333. [Google Scholar]
  49. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10 (3), 209–231. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sezer, E. (1983). On non-final stress in Turkish. Journal of Turkish Studies, 5, 61–69. [Google Scholar]
  51. T’ Hart, J., Collier, R. et Cohen, A. (1990). A perceptual study of intonation: an experimental phonetic approach to speech melody. Cambridge studies in speech science and communication, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  52. Underhill, R. (1976). Turkish Grammar, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  53. Vaissière, J. (1991). Rhythm, accentuation and final lengthening in French. Carlson, R., Nord, L. et Sundberg, J. (eds). Proceedings of the 1990 Wenner-Gren Center Conference on Music, Language, Speech and Brain. New York: Macmillan, 108–120. [Google Scholar]
  54. Van der Hulst, H. (2012). Deconstructing stress. Lingua 122, 1494–1521. [Google Scholar]
  55. Van der Hulst, H. et Van der Weijer, J. (1991). Topics in Turkish Phonology. Turkish Linguistics Today, 11–59. [Google Scholar]
  56. Verluyten, P. (1984). Phonetic reality of linguistic structures: the case of (secondary) stress in French. Proceedings of ICPhS 10, 522–526. [Google Scholar]
  57. Wardhaugh, R. (1970). The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly 4. [Google Scholar]
  58. Wenk, B. J. et Wioland, F. (1982). Is French really syllable-timed? Journal of Phonetics, 10 (2), 193216. [Google Scholar]
  59. Yilmaz, S. (2004). Organisation discursive et intonative du français parlé par un locuteur turc. Comparaison avec la production d’un locuteur français. Francophonie en Turquie, dans les pays balkaniques et de l’Europe orientale. Actes du Colloque International Pluridisciplinaire, Les Cahiers du Bosphore XL (40). Université Hacettepe, Ankara, Textes réunis et publiés par Zeynep Mennan, Istanbul: Isis, 393–414. [Google Scholar]
  60. Yilmaz, S. et Uras Yilmaz, A. (2011). Structuration et fonctionnement des dispositifs syntaxiques en turc parlé. Synergies Turquie, 4, Istanbul: Gerflint, 107–119. [Google Scholar]
  61. Zubizarreta, M. & Nava, E. (2011). Encoding discourse-based meaning: Prosody vs syntax. Implications for second language acquisition. Lingua, 121, 652–669. [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.