EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 138 (2022) SHS Web Conf., 138 (2022) 11002 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 138, 2022
8e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 11002
Number of page(s) 14
Section Sémantique
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202213811002
Published online 11 May 2022
  1. Abbott, B. (1993). A pragmatic account of the definiteness effect in existential sentences. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 39-55. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Achard, M. (2015). Impersonals and other Agent Defocusing Constructions in French. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bentley, D., Ciconte, F.M. & Cruschina, S. (2013). Existential constructions in crosslinguistic perspective. Rivista di Linguistica, 25(1), 1-13. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bentley, D., Ciconte, F.M. & Cruschina, S. (2015). Existentials and Locatives in Romance Dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bergen, B. & Planché, M. (2005). The convergent evolution of radial constructions: French and English deictics and existentials. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(1), 1-42. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Beyssade, C. (2004). Les constructions existentielles. In Beyssade, C. & Dobrovie-Sorin, C. Définir les indéfinis. Paris: CNRS. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cappeau, P. & Schnedecker, C. (2014). Des gens bien différents à l’oral et à l’écrit. Hypothèses sur la pronominalisation des SN en gens. Verbum, 36, 55-74. [Google Scholar]
  8. Carlier, A. & Sarda, L. (2010). Le complément de la localisation spatiale: entre argument et adjoint. In Neveu, F., Muni-Toké, V., Durand, J., Klingler, T., Mondada, L. & Prévost, S. (eds.). Actes du CMLF'10, Paris, ILF, 2057-2073. [Google Scholar]
  9. Carlson, G. N. (1977). Reference to Kinds in English. Ph.D. thesis. University of Massachusetts. Amherst. [Google Scholar]
  10. Charolles, M. (2002). La référence et les expressions référentielles en français. Paris: Ophrys. [Google Scholar]
  11. Col, G., Danino, Ch. & Bikialo, S. (2020). Polysémie, usages et fonctions de voilà. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
  12. Creissels, D. (2014). Existential predication in typological perspective. 46th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Split, 18 - 21 September 2013. [Google Scholar]
  13. Heine, B. (2002). On the role of context in grammatica lization. In Wischer, I. & Diewald, G. (eds.). New reflections on grammaticalization. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins, 83-101. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hopper, P. J. & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language, 56(2), 251-299. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Huumo, T. (2003). Incremental Existence: The World According to the Finnish Existential Sentence. Linguistics, 41(3), 461–493. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. London: George Allan & Unwin. [Google Scholar]
  17. Karssenberg, L. (2018). Non-prototypical clefts in French: A corpus analysis of French il y a clefts. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [Google Scholar]
  18. Karssenberg, L. & Lahousse, K. (2018). The information structure of French il y a clefts & c’est clefts: a corpus-based analysis. Linguistics, 56(3), 513-548. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Kleiber, G. (1981). Relatives spécifiantes et relatives non-spécifiantes, Le Français Moderne, 49(3), 216-233. [Google Scholar]
  20. Koch, P. (2012). Location, existence, and possession: A constructional-typological exploration. Linguistics, 50(3), 533-603. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2012-0018 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lambrecht, K. (1987). On the status of SVO sentences in French discourse. In Tomlin, R. (ed.). Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 217-261. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Lambrecht, K. (2000). Prédication seconde et structure informationnelle: la relative de perception comme construction présentative. Langue française, 127, 49-66. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lambrecht, K. (2002) Topic, Focus and secondary predication. The French presentational relative construction. In Beyssade, C. (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2000. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 171-212. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Lambrecht, K. & Polinsky, M. (1997). Typological variation in sentence-focus constructions. In Singar, K. (ed.). CLS 33. Papers from the panels on: linguistic ideologies in contact; universal grammar, parameters and typology; the perception of speech and other acoustic signals. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 189–206. [Google Scholar]
  26. Leonetti, M. (2008). Definiteness effects and the role of the coda in existential constructions. In Høeg Müller, H. & Klinge, A. (eds.), Essays on Nominal Determination: From morphology to discourse management. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 131-162. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lyons, J. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. McNally, (1992). An interpretation for the English existential construction. University of California, Santa Cruz. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  29. McNally, L. (2011). 69. Existential sentences. In von Heusinger, K., Maienborn, C. & Portner, P. (eds.). Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science, Volume 2, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 1829-1848. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255072.1829 [Google Scholar]
  30. Meulleman, M. & Roegiest, E. (2012). Los locativos en la valencia de la construcción existencial española: ¿actante o circunstante?. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 128(1), 57-70. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Milsark, G. (1977). Towards an explanation of certain particularities of existential sentences in English. Linguistic Analysis, 3, 1-30. [Google Scholar]
  32. Partee, B. H. & Borschev, V. (2007). Existential sentences, BE, and the genitive of negation in Russian. In Comorovski, I. & von Heusinger, K. (eds.). Existence: Semantics and syntax. Dordrecht: Springer., 147–190. [Google Scholar]
  33. Pfenninger, S. (2009). Grammaticalization Paths of English and High German Existential Constructions. Berne: Peter Lang. [Google Scholar]
  34. Sasse, H.-J. (1987). The thetic/ categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics, 25, 511-580. [Google Scholar]
  35. Van de Velde, D. (2005). Les interprétations partitive et existentielle des indéfinis dans les phrases existentielles locatives. Travaux de linguistique, 50, 37-52. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Viberg, Å. (2008). Swedish verbs of perception from a typological and contrastive perspective. In de los Ángeles Gómez González, M., Lachlan Mackenzie, J. & González Álvarez, E. M. (eds.). Languages and Cultures in Contrast and Comparison. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 123–172. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Vogeleer, S. (1994). L’accès perceptuel à l’information: à propos des expressions un homme arrive / on voit arriver un homme. Langue française, 102, 69-83. [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.