EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 138 (2022) SHS Web Conf., 138 (2022) 09001 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 138, 2022
8e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 09001
Number of page(s) 14
Section Psycholinguistique et acquisition
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202213809001
Published online 11 May 2022
  1. Authier, J. M., Haegeman, L., 2019. “The Syntax of Mirative Focus Fronting: Evidence from French”, in Arteaga, D. L. (eds), Contributions of Romance Languages to Current Linguistic Theory, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 95 (3). [Google Scholar]
  2. Cruschina, S., 2021. “The Greater the Contrast, the Greater the Potential: On the Effects of Focus in Syntax.”, Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 6 (1). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cruschina, S., Remberger, E. M., 2017. “14. Focus Fronting.”, in Dufter, A., Stark, E. (eds), Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax, Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 502-35. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. De Cesare, A.M., 2017. “Cleft Constructions in romance: definition, types, and parameters of variation”, in Dufter, A., and Stark, E. (eds), Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax, Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 536-568. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. De Cesare, A. M., Garassino, D., 2018. “Chapter 9. Adverbial Cleft Sentences in Italian, French and English: A Comparative Perspective.”, in García García, M., Uth, M. (eds), Focus Realization in Romance and Beyond, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 255-86. [Google Scholar]
  6. Destruel, E., Donaldson, B., 2017. “Second language acquisition of pragmatic inferences: Evidence from the French c’est –cleft”, Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(3), pp. 703-732. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dimroth, C., Narasimhan, B., 2012. “The acquisition of information structure”, in Krifka, M., Musan, R. (eds), The Expression of Information Structure, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 319-362. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Donaldson, B., 2016. “Aspects of interrogative use in near-native French: Form, function, and register”, Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6. [Google Scholar]
  9. Dufter, A., 2009. “Clefting and Discourse Organization: Comparing Germanic and Romance”, in Dufter, A., Jacob, D. (eds), Focus and Background in Romance Languages, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 83-121. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Gabriel, C., Grünke, J., 2018. “Focus, prosody, and subject positions in L3 Spanish: Analyzing data from German learners with Italian and European Portuguese as heritage languages”, in García García, M., Uth, M. (eds), Focus realization in romance and beyond, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 357-386. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hertel, T. J., 2003. “Lexical and discourse factors in the second language acquisition of Spanish word order”, Second Language Research 19(4), pp. 273-304. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Katz, S., 2000. “Categories of ‘c’est’-Cleft Constructions”, Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 45, pp. 253-73. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kupisch, T., Rothman, J., 2016. “Interfaces with syntax in language acquisition”, in Fischer, S., Gabriel, C. (eds), Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 551-585. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lambrecht, K., 2012. Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Lambrecht, K., 2001. “A Framework for the Analysis of Cleft Constructions”, Linguistics, 39, pp. 463-516. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Lobo, M., Martins, A. M., 2017. “Subjects”, in Dufter, A., and Stark, E. (eds), Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax, Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
  17. Lozano, C., 2006. “Focus and split-intransitivity: the acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish”, Second Language Research, 22(2), pp. 145-187. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Molnar, V., 2002. “Contrast from a Contrastive Perspective.”, in Hallelgard, H., Behrens, B. and Fabricius-Hansen, C. (eds), Information Structure in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi, pp. 147-161. [Google Scholar]
  19. Repp, S., 2010. “Defining ‘contrast’ as an Information-Structural Notion in Grammar”, Lingua, 120(6), pp. 1333-1345. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Repp, S., 2016. “Contrast”: Dissecting an Elusive Information-Structural Notion and Its Role in Grammar”, in Féry, C., Ishihara, S. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ringbom, H., Jarvis, S. 2009. “The Importance of Cross-Linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning”, in Long, M. H., Doughty, C. J. (eds), The Handbook of Language Teaching. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  22. Roggia, C. E., 2008. “Frasi Scisse in italiano e in francese orale: evidenze dal C-ORAL-ROM.”, Cuadernos de Filología Italiana, 15: 21. [Google Scholar]
  23. Romero, M., 2020. “Form and Function of Negative, Tag, and Rhetorical Questions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Negation. Oxford Handbooks Online. [Google Scholar]
  24. Rothman, J., 2010. “On the typological economy of syntactic transfer: Word order and relative clause high/low attachment preference in L3 Brazilian Portuguese”, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Teaching (IRAL), 48, pp., 245–273. [Google Scholar]
  25. Van den Steen, K., 2005. “Cleft Constructions in French and Spanish”, in Delbecque, N., Van der Auwera, J., Geeraerts, D. (eds), Perspectives on Variation, Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zubizarreta, M. L., Nava, E., 2011. “Encoding discourse-based meaning: Prosody vs. syntax. Implications for second language acquisition”, Lingua, 121, pp. 652-669. [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.