EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 191 (2024) SHS Web Conf., 191 (2024) 01008 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 191, 2024
9e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 01008
Number of page(s) 16
Section Discours, pragmatique et interaction
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202419101008
Published online 28 June 2024
  1. Antaki, C., Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. & Rapley, M. (2000). “ Brilliant. next question … ”: High-grade assessment sequences in the completion of interactional units. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(3), 235–262. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Anthony, L. (2023). AntConc (Version 4.2.4) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Disponible à partir de https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software [Google Scholar]
  3. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Bastos, M. T. (2011). Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8, 347–384. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bartning, I. & Schlyter, S. (2004). Itinéraires acquisitionnels et stades de développement en français L2. Journal of French language studies, 14(3), 281–299. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bilger, M. & Tyne, H. (2009): Variation in first and second language French: the case of ‘parce que’. In: K. Beeching et al. (Eds.), Sociolinguistic Variation in Contemporary French (pp. 233–259). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bloom, L. (1993). Language development from two to three. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  7. Brisson, L. (2008). Timée: Platon, OEuvres complètes (Trad. du grec ancien). Paris: Éditions Flammarion. 2204 p. ISBN 978-2-08-121810–9. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bybee, J. (2002). Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. The evolution of language out of prelanguage, 53, 109–134. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark, E. V. (1998). Lexique et syntaxe dans l’acquisition du français. Langue française, 49–60. [Google Scholar]
  11. Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment — Companion volume. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  12. Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2009). A sequential approach to affect: The case of ‘disappointment’. Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions, 94–123. [Google Scholar]
  13. Debaisieux, J. M. (1994). Le fonctionnement de” parce que” en français parlé contemporain: description linguistique et implications didactiques, Thèse de doctorat, Université de Nancy 2. [Google Scholar]
  14. Debaisieux, J. M. 2004. Les conjonctions de subordination: mots grammaticaux ou mots de discours? Le cas de parce que. Revue de sémantique et pragmatique 15(16), 51–67. [Google Scholar]
  15. Debaisieux, J. M. (2013). Analyses linguistiques sur corpus. Hermes Lavoisier. [Google Scholar]
  16. Degand, L. (2019). Causal Relations between Discourse and Grammar: Because in Spoken French and Dutch. In Ó. Loureda, I. Recio Fernández, L. Nadal & A. Cruz (eds.), Empirical Studies of the Construction of Discourse (pp.131–150). Amsterdam - Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  17. Degand, L. & Fagard, B. (2012). Competing connectives in the causal domain: French car and parce que. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(2), 154–168. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. De Fornel, M. (1989). Parce que et le problème de l’inférence. Cahiers de linguistique française, 10, 171–192. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ellis, N.C. (2008). The Dynamics of Second Langage Emergence: Cycles of Language Use, Language Change, and Language Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 232–249. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Evers-Vermeul, J. & Sanders, T. (2011). Discovering domains–On the acquisition of causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1645–1662. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ferrari, A. (1992). Encore à propos de parce que, à la lumière des structures linguistiques de la séquence causale. Cahiers de linguistique française, 13, 183–214. [Google Scholar]
  22. Forsberg, F. (2010). Using Conventional Sequences in L2 French. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 48(1), 25–50. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon Books. [Google Scholar]
  24. Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 1(1), 1–54. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hancock, V. (1997). Parce que: un connecteur macro-syntaxique. L’emploi de parce que chez des apprenants de français langue étrangère et des locuteurs natifs. Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère, (9), 117–145. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. Conversation analysis, 13–31. [Google Scholar]
  27. Jivanyan, H. (2012). Relations causales épistémiques: Focalisation de parce que et contrefactualité. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française, (30), 141–160. [Google Scholar]
  28. Juillet, M. (à paraître). Verbally incomplete ‘parce que’ (because) clauses: a longitudinal and multimodal study of second language French. Bulletin VALS-ASLA 117. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kronning, H. (1997). Modalité, causation et argumentation. Les conjonctions causales parce que/car/puisque et l’interprétation du verbe modal devoir. Actas do XIX Congreso Internacional de Lingüística e Filoloxîa Românicas, Santiago: Université de Santiago de Compostela, 799–812. [Google Scholar]
  30. Groupe Lambda. (1975). Car, parce que, puisque. Revue romane, 10(2), 248–280. [Google Scholar]
  31. McCabe, A. & Peterson, C. (1988). A comparison of adults’ versus children’s spontaneous use of because and so. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 149(2), 257–268. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Moeschler, J. (1987). Trois emplois de parce que en conversation. Cahiers de linguistique française, 8, 97–110. [Google Scholar]
  33. Moeschler, J. (1996). Parce que et l’enchaînement conversationnel. Dépendance et intégration syntaxique: subordination, coordination, connexion, 285–292. [Google Scholar]
  34. Moeschler, J. (2003). L’expression de la causalité en français. Cahiers de linguistique française, 25, 11–42. [Google Scholar]
  35. Moeschler, J. (2009). Causalité et argumentation: l’exemple de parce que. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 29, 117–148. [Google Scholar]
  36. Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Mouchon, S., Ehrlich, M. F. & Loridant, C. (1999). Effets immédiats ou différés du connecteur «parce que» dans la compréhension de phrases? Réexamen du modèle de Millis et Just (1994). L’Année psychologique, 99(2), 239–269. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. Orsolini, M. (1993). Because in children’s discourse. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14(1), 89–120. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. Pekarek Doehler, S. (2018). Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: The development of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 3–24. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. Pekarek Doehler, S., De Stefani, E. & Horlacher, A. S. (2015). Time and Emergence in Grammar: Disclocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talk-In-Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  42. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation: Volume I. Malden: Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  43. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turntaking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  44. Schegloff, E. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  45. Simon, A. C. & Degand, L. (2007). Connecteurs de causalité, implication du locuteur et profils prosodiques: le cas de car et de parce que. Journal of French Language Studies, 17(3), 323–341. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  46. Skogmyr Marian, K. (2021). Assessing without words: Verbally incomplete utterances in complaints. Frontiers in Psychology, 12:689443. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  47. Skogmyr Marian, K. (2022). The development of L2 interactional competence: A multimodal study of complaining in French interactions. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  48. Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  49. Zufferey, S. (2006). Connecteurs pragmatiques et métareprésentation: l’exemple de parce que. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française, 27, 161–179. [Google Scholar]
  50. Zufferey, S., Mak, W. M. & Sanders, T. J. (2015). A cross-linguistic perspective on the acquisition of causal connectives and relations. International review of pragmatics, 7(1), 22–39. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  51. Zufferey, S., Mak, W., Verbrugge, S. & Sanders, T. (2018). Usage and processing of the French causal connectives ‘car’and ‘parce que’. Journal of French Language Studies, 28(1), 85–112. [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.