EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 78 (2020) SHS Web Conf., 78 (2020) 12007 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 78, 2020
7e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 12007
Number of page(s) 14
Section Sémantique
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20207812007
Published online 04 September 2020
  1. Aijmer, K. (2006). Understanding pragmatic markers. A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [Google Scholar]
  2. Asher, N., Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bartkova, K., Dargnat, M., Jouvet, D., Lee, L. (2017). Annotations de particules de discours en français sur une large variété de corpus. In Danlos, L., Fort, K., Guillaume B., Kahane, S. (éd.), Actes de l’atelier « ACor4French - les corpus annotés du français »,TALN 2017, Orléans, 10-17. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bastien, A., Bartkova, K., Dargnat, M. (2016). How to be a Discourse Particle? In Barnes, J., Brugos, A., Shattuck-Hunagel S., Veilleux, N. (eds), Proceedings of Speech and Prosody 2016, Boston: International Speech Communication Association, 858-863. [Google Scholar]
  5. Beaver, D. (2010). Have you noticed that your belly button lint colour is related to the colour your clothing? In Bäuerle, R., Reyle, U., Zimmermann, E. (eds.), Presuppositions and Discourse: Essays Offered to Hans Kamp. Oxford: Elsevier, 65-99. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Beaver, D., Roberts, C., Simons, M., Tonhauser, J. (2017). Questions under discussion: Where information structure meets projective content. Annual Review of Linguistics, 3, 265-284. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Beaver, D., Clark, B. Z. (2008). Sense and Sensitivity. How Focus Determines Meaning. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Beeching, K. (2001). Gender, politeness and pragmatic particles in French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  9. Beeching, K. (2016). Pragmatic markers in British English. Meaning in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Brémond, C. (2002). Les « petites marques du discours ». Le cas du marqueur méta-discursif bon en français. Thèse de l’Université de Provence. [Google Scholar]
  11. Chierchia, G., McConnell-Ginet, S. (1990). Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  12. Crible, L., Degand, L. (sous presse). Domains and functions: A two-dimensional account of discourse markers. Discours: revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dargnat, M. (sous presse). Interjections et particules de discours. In Abeillé, A., Godard, D., Gautier, A. (éd.), Grande Grammaire du Français. Arles: Actes Sud, 17 p. [Google Scholar]
  14. Dargnat, M., Jayez, J. (sous presse). Presupposition Projection and Main Content. In Abeillé, A., Bonami, O. (eds), Constraint-based Syntax and Semantics. Papers in Honor of Danièle Godard. Stanford: CSLI publications, 26 p. [Google Scholar]
  15. Denturck, E. (2008). Étude des marqueurs discursifs, l’exemple de quoi. Master in de Taal-en Letterkunde. Universiteit Gent. [Google Scholar]
  16. Dostie, G. (2004). Pragmaticalisation et marqueurs discursifs. Analyse sémantique et traitement lexi- cographique. Liège: De Boeck/Duculot. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ducrot, O. (1972). Dire et ne pas dire. Principes de sémantique linguistique. Paris: Hermann. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ducrot, O. (1984). Le Dire et le dit. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. [Google Scholar]
  19. Fernandez-Vest, J. (1994). Les particules énonciatives dans la construction du discours. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fischer, K. (ed.) (2006). Approaches to Discourse Particles. Elsevier: Amsterdam. [Google Scholar]
  21. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of pragmatics, 31(7),931-952. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Frege, G. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100, 25-50. [Google Scholar]
  23. Geurts, B. (1999). Presuppositions and pronouns. Amsterdam: Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ginzburg, J. (2012). The Interactive Stance. Meaning for Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Grieve, J. (1995). Dictionary of contemporary French connectors. Londres: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  26. Gutzmann, D. (2013). Expressives and beyond: An introduction to varieties of use-conditional meaning. In Gutzmann, D., Gärtner, H.-M. (eds), Beyond expressives: Explorations in use-conditional meaning. Leiden: Brill, 1-58. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gutzmann, D. (2015). Use-conditional meaning. Studies in multidimensional semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Gutzmann, D. (2019). The Grammar of expressivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. Halliday, M.A.K., Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hansen, M.-B. M. (1998). The Function of discourse particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  31. Jayez, J. (2010). Projective meaning and attachment. In Logic, Language and Meaning. Revised selected papers of the 17th Amsterdam Colloquium, Amsterdam 2009, n° 6042 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Berlin: Springer, 325-334. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kaplan, R. (1999). The meaning of ouch and oops. Transcription d’une conférence. http://eecoppock.info/PragmaticsSoSe2012/kaplan.pdf [Google Scholar]
  33. Karttunen, L. (1971). Some observations on factivity. Papers in Linguistics, 4, 55-69. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Karttunen, L. (2016). Presupposition: What went wrong. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 26, 705-731. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2009 [1980]). L’énonciation. Paris: Armand Colin. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kiparsky, P., Kiparsky, C. (1971). Fact. In Steinberg, D. & Jakobovits, L. (eds.), Semantics. An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 345-69. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kleiber, G. (2006). Sémiotique de l’interjection. Langages, 161, 10-23. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. Langendoen, D. T., Savin, H. B. (1971). The projection problem for presupposition. In Fillmore, J., Langendoen, D. T. (eds), Studies in Linguictic Semantics. New York/Chicago/San Francisco: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 54-60. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mann, W. & Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(31),243-281. [Google Scholar]
  40. Métrich, R., Faucher, E., Courdier, G. (2002). Invariables difficiles, Dictionnaire allemand-français des particules, connecteurs, interjections et autres mots de la communication. Nancy: Groupe de lexicographie franco-allemande de l’Université de Nancy 2 et ATILF. [Google Scholar]
  41. Morgan, J. (1969). On the treatment of presupposition in transformational grammar. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 5, 167-177. [Google Scholar]
  42. Paillard, D. (1998). Les mots du discours comme mots de langue. Le Gré des langues, 14, 10-41. [Google Scholar]
  43. Peters, S. (2016). Speakers commitments: presupposition. In n Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 26, 1083-1098. [Google Scholar]
  44. Potts, C. (2005). The Logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  45. Potts, C. (2007). The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics, 33, 255-268. [Google Scholar]
  46. Renkema, J. (2009). The Texture of Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  47. Roberts, C. (2012 [1998]). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(6),1-69. [Google Scholar]
  48. Roze, C. (2009). Base lexicale des connecteurs discursifs du français. Mémoire de M2 recherche en linguistique informatique de l’Université Paris 7. [Google Scholar]
  49. Simons, M. (2007). Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presuppositions. Lingua,117, 1034-1056. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  50. Simons, M., Tonhauser, J., Beaver,D., Roberts, C. (2011). What projects and why. In Li, N., Lutz, D. (eds), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20, eLanguage, 309-327. [Google Scholar]
  51. Simons, M., Beaver, D., Roberts, C., Tonhauser, J. (2017). The best question: Explaining the projection behavior for factives. Discourse Processes, 54 (3), 187-206. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  52. Stalnaker, R. C. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Munitz, M., Unger, P. (eds), Semantics and Philosophy. New York: New York University Press, 197-214. [Google Scholar]
  53. Tonhauser J., Beaver D., Roberts C., Simons M. (2013). Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language, 89, 66-109. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  54. Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D.I. & Degen, J. (2018). How projective is projective content? Gradience in projectivity and at-issueness. Journal of Semantics, 35, 495-542. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  55. Traugott, E.-C. (1982). From propositionnal to textual and expressive meanings: somme semantic- pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, W. P., Malkiel, Y. (eds), Perspectives on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 245-272. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  56. Van der Sandt, R.A. (1992). Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics, 9, 333-377. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  57. Vincent, D., Sankoff, D. (1992). Punctors: a pragmatic variable. Language Variation and Change, 4, 205-216. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  58. Vincent D. (1993). Les ponctuants de la langue et autres mots du discours. Québec: Nuit Blanche Éditeur. [Google Scholar]
  59. Wharton, T. (2003). Interjections, language and the showing-saying continuum. Pragmatics and Cognition, 11.1, 39-91. [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.