EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 191 (2024) SHS Web Conf., 191 (2024) 01002 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 191, 2024
9e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 01002
Number of page(s) 14
Section Discours, pragmatique et interaction
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202419101002
Published online 28 June 2024
  1. Bangerter, A. & Herbert, C. H. (2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science, 27, 195–225. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2000). Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 941–952. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Béal, C. (2010). Les interactions quotidiennes en français et en anglais. Bern: Peter Lang. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bertrand, R. & Espesser, R. (2017). Co-narration in French conversation storytelling: A quantitative insight. Journal of Pragmatics, 111, 33–53. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Branigan, H. P., Catchpole, C. M. & Pickering, M. J. (2011). What makes dialogues easy to understand? Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(10), 1667–1686. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J. & Cleland, A. A. (2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75, B13–B25. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brennan, S. E. & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1482–1493. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, H. H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1–39. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Clark, H. H. & Krych, M. A. (2004). Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(1) 62–81. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Col, G., Danino, C., Knutsen, D. & Rault, J. (2016). Rôle de voilà dans l’affirmation: valeur confirmative et marque d’intégration d’informations. Testi e linguaggi, 10, 39–55. [Google Scholar]
  11. Crible, L. (2023). “New data, new markers? Opening up discourse markers to expressions of alignment.” Paper presented at the International Conference on “Discourse Markers: Theory and Method”, Paris, France, May 24-26th 2024. [Google Scholar]
  12. Crible, L. & Degand, L. (2021). Co-occurrence and ordering of discourse markers in sequences: A multifactorial study in spoken French. Journal of Pragmatics, 177, 18–28. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Crible, L., Gandolfi, G. & Pickering, M. J. (2024). Feedback quality and divided attention: exploring commentaries on alignment in task-oriented dialogue. Language & Cognition (online): 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  14. Danino, C., Knutsen, D. & Col, G. (2020). Naviguer dans le dialogue et faire voir ce que l’on dit: Approches linguistique et psycholinguistique de voilà. Dans M. Saiz-Sanchez, A. Rodriguez Somolinos & S. Gomez-Jordana Ferary (eds), Marques d’oralité et représentation de l’oral en français. Presses universitaires Savoie Mont Blanc. [Google Scholar]
  15. Delahaie, J. (2009) Oui, voilà ou d’accord ? Enseigner les marqueurs d’accord en classe de FLE. Synergies Pays Scandinaves, 4, 17–34. [Google Scholar]
  16. Delahaie, J. et Solís García, I. (2019). Ok/d’accord/vale: étude contrastive des marqueurs du français de France et de l’espagnol d’Espagne. Lexique, 25, 137–159. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dostie, G. (2013). Les associations de marqueurs discursifs. De la cooccurrence libre à la collocation. Linguistik online, 62, 15–45. [Google Scholar]
  18. Fox Tree, J. E. (1999). Listening in on monologues and dialogues. Discourse Processes, 27(1), 35–53. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fusaroli, R., Tylén, K., Garly, K., Steensig, J., Christiansen, M. H. & Dingemanse, M. (2017). Measures and mechanisms of common ground: backchannels, conversational repair, and interactive alignment in free and task-oriented social interactions. Dans G. Gunzelmann, A. Howes, T. Tenbrink and E. Davelaar (eds), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2017), 2055–2060. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society). [Google Scholar]
  20. Hansen, M.-J. M. (2006). A dynamic polysemy approach to the lexical semantics of discourse markers (with an exemplary analysis of French toujours). Dans K. Fischer (éd.), Approaches to discourse particles, 21–42. Amsterdam: Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  21. Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T. & Long, H. (2021). The rise of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kerbrat-Orrechioni, C. (1994). Les interactions verbales (tome 1). Paris: Armand Colin. [Google Scholar]
  23. Knutsen, D., Bangerter, A. & Mayor, E. (2018). Procedural coordination in the matching task. Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), 3. [Google Scholar]
  24. Pickering, M. J. & Garrod, S. (2021). Understanding Dialogue. Language Use and Social Interaction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Põldvere, N., Johansson, V. & Paradis, C. (2021). Resonance in dialogue: the interplay between intersubjective motivations and cognitive facilitation. Language and Cognition, 13, 643–699. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Priego-Valverde B., Nguyen N. & Bertrand R. (2022). Alignement, affiliation et trajectoire interactionnelle dans la conversation. TIPA. Travaux indisciplinaires sur la parole et le langage, 38. [Google Scholar]
  27. Saiz-Sanchez, M. (2022). Le fonctionnement pragmatique et interactionnel des marqueurs rédupliqués oui oui, non non et si si. Çédille, revista de estudios franceses, 21, 417–439. [Google Scholar]
  28. Sakita, T. (2013). Discourse markers as stance markers. Well in stance alignment in conversational interaction. Pragmatics & Cognition, 21(1), 81–116. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Tobback, E. & L., P. (2016). L’emploi des marqueurs d’accord dans les débats télévisés néerlandophones et francophones: à la recherche d’un ethos communicatif « belge » perdu ? Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 117(2), 371–397. [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.