EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 191 (2024) SHS Web Conf., 191 (2024) 01016 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 191, 2024
9e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 01016
Number of page(s) 17
Section Discours, pragmatique et interaction
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202419101016
Published online 28 June 2024
  1. Auer, P. (2014). Syntactic structures and their symbiotic guests: notes on analepsis from the perspective of on-line syntax. Pragmatics, 24 (3), 533–560. [Google Scholar]
  2. Avanzi, M., Béguelin, M.-J. & Diémoz, F. (Eds.) 2012-2019. OFROM: Corpus oral de français de Suisse romande. http://www.unine.ch/ofrom. [Google Scholar]
  3. Lefeuvre, F. & Rossi-Gensane, N. (2017). Les interrogatives indirectes en discours informel oral. Langue française, 196 (4), 51–74. [Google Scholar]
  4. Beijering, K., Kaltenböck, G. & Sansiñena, M. (2019). Insubordination: Theoretical and Empirical Issues. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Blanche-Benveniste, C. (2010). Le français: usages de la langue parlée. Leuven: Peeters. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chanet, C. (2001). 1700 occurrences de la particule quoi en français parlé contemporain: approche de la « distribution » et des fonctions en discours. Revue en ligne Marges Linguistiques 2, 56–80. http://www.marges-linguistiques.com [Google Scholar]
  7. Corminboeuf, G. (2010). Les structures nominales à interprétation hypothétique. Format syntaxique et constantes sémantiques. In M.-J. Béguelin, M. Avanzi & G. Corminboeuf (Eds): La Parataxe, t. 2, Berne: Lang, 29–46. [Google Scholar]
  8. Corminboeuf, G. & Horlacher, A.-S. (2016). « La projection en macro-syntaxe et en linguistique interactionnelle: dimensions théoriques et empiriques ». Langue française, 192, 15–36. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Corminboeuf, G. & Jahn, T. (2020). Taxinomie des constructions en si dans un corpus de français oral. L’exemple d’OFROM. Studia Linguistica Romanica, 4, 195–220. [Google Scholar]
  10. Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2011). Grammaticalization and Conversation. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 424-437. [Google Scholar]
  11. Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2018). Finding a place for body movement in grammar. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51, 22–25. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics. Studying language in social interaction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Thompson, S. A. (2022). Can termporal clauses be insubordinate? Evidence from English conversation. Interactional Linguistics, 2 (2), 165–189. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dargnat, M. (2008). Constructionnalité des parataxes conditionnelles. Paris: Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, 2467–2482. [Google Scholar]
  15. Debaisieux, J.-M. (1994). Fonctionnement de parce que en français parlé. Thèse de doctorat en sciences du langage, Université de Nancy 2. [Google Scholar]
  16. Debaisieux, M.-J., Deulofeu H. J. & Martin P. (2008). Pour une syntaxe sans ellipse. In J. C. Pitavy & M. Bigot (Eds): Ellipse et effacement. P.U. St. Etienne, 225–246. [Google Scholar]
  17. Debaisieux, M.-J., Martin, P. & Deulofeu, H.-J. (2019). Apparent insubordination as discourse patterns in French. In K. Beijering, G. Kaltenböck & M. Sansiñena (Eds): Insubordination. Theoretical and Empirical Issues. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 349-383. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Deulofeu, J. (1988). La syntaxe de que en français parlé et le problème de la subordination. Recherches sur le français parlé, 8, 79–104. [Google Scholar]
  19. De Stefani, E. (2021). If-clauses, their grammatical consequents, and their embodied consequence: Organizing joint attention in guided tours”. In L. Keevallik, S. Pekarek Doehler & X. Li (Eds): Frontiers in Communication. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.661165 [Google Scholar]
  20. Deulofeu, J., Debaisieux, J.-M. & Martin, P. (2019). Apparent insubordination as discourse patterns in French. In K. Beijering, G. Kaltenböck & M. Sansiñena (Eds): Insubordination Theoretical and empirical issues. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 349-83. [Google Scholar]
  21. Drew, P. & Walker, T. (2010). Citizens’ emergency calls: Requesting assistance in calls to the police. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.): The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London: Routledge, 95-110. [Google Scholar]
  22. Dwyer, A. (2016). Ordinary insubordination as transient discourse. In N. Evans & H. Watanabe (Eds): Insubordination. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 183-208. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Evans, N. (2007). Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva (Ed.): Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. [Google Scholar]
  24. Evans, N. & Watanabe, H. (2016) (Eds). Insubordination. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. González-Martínez, E. (2023). « Faire du coude » avec un énoncé « il y a x »: inciter à l’action et recruter une personne responsable d’agir en milieu hospitalier. Langage et société, 179, 111–139. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gras, P. (2016). Revisiting the functional typology of insubordination: que-initial sentences in Spanish. In N. Evans & H. Watanabe (Eds): Insubordination. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 113-144. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gras, P. & Sansiñena, M. (2015). An interactional account of discourse-connective que-constructions in Spanish. Text & Talk, 35 (4), 505–529. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Grevisse, M. (2016). Le bon usage. Grammaire, langue française. Paris/Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck-Duculot. [Google Scholar]
  29. Günthner, S. (1999). Entwickelt sich der Konzessivkonnektor obwohl zum Diskursmarker? Grammatikalisierungstendenzen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Linguistische Berichte, 180, 409–446. [Google Scholar]
  30. Günthner, S. (2020). From complex wenn-constructions to insubordinate (‘stand-alone’) conditionals in everyday spoken German. In Y. Maschler, S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Lindström & L. Keevallik (Eds): Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal patterns and the organization of action. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 185-220. [Google Scholar]
  31. Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A. (Eds) (1984). Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Typological Studies in Language, 18, 275–330. [Google Scholar]
  32. Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T. & Long, H. (2019). On the Rise of Discourse Markers. In A. Haselow & S. Hancil (Eds): Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface: Discourse Markers and Discourse-Related Grammatical Phenomena. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  33. Heinemann, T. & Traverso, V. (2009). Complaining in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2381–2384. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Horlacher, A.-S. (2021). Compound and independent if-clauses at the hairdresser’s: negotiating the procedures of the treatment. Présentation orale, 17th International Pragmatics Conference, 27 juin – 2 juillet 2021, Winterthur, Switzerland. [Google Scholar]
  35. Horlacher, A.-S. (2022). Negative requests within hair salons: Grammar and embodiment in action formation. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.689563 [Google Scholar]
  36. Horlacher, A.-S. & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2022). Si vous avez quelqu’un sous la main: les si-indépendantes en tant que format de requête. Langue française, 216 (4), 47–61. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Jeanneret, T. (1999). La coénonciation en français. Approches discursive, conversationnelle et syntaxique. Berne: Lang. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kaltenböck, G. & Keizer, E. (2022). Insubordinate if-clauses in FDG: degrees of independence. Open Linguistics, 8 (1), 675–698. https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2022-0212. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. Keevallik, L. (2013). The interdependence of bodily demonstrations and clausal syntax. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46 (1), 1–21. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. Keevallik, L. (2018). What does embodied interaction tell us about grammar? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51 (1), 1–21. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. Lastres-López, C. (2020). Beyond conditionality: On the pragmaticalization of interpersonal ifconstructions in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 157, 68–83. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. Laury, R. (2012). Syntactically Non-integrated Finnish jos ‘If’-Conditional Clauses as Directives. Discourse Processes, 49, 213–242. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  43. Laury, R., Lindholm, C. & Lindström, J. K. (2013). Syntactically non-integrated conditional clauses in spoken Finnish and Swedish. In E. Havu & I. Hyvärinen (Eds): Comparing and contrasting syntactic structures: From dependency to quasi-subordination. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, LXXXVI, 231-270. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lehmann, C. (1988). Towards a typology of clause linkage. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds): Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 181-225. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  45. Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the Syntax of Sentences-in-Progress. Language in Society, 20, 441–458. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  46. Lindström, J., Lindholm C. & Laury, R. (2016). The interactional emergence of conditional clauses as directives: constructions, trajectories and sequences of actions. Language Science, 58, 8–21. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  47. Lindström, J., Laury, R. & Lindholm, C. (2019). Insubordination and the Contextually Sensitive Emergence of If-Requests in Swedish and Finnish Institutional Talk-In-Interaction. In K. Beijering, G. Kaltenböck & M. Sansiñena (Eds): Insubordination: Theoretical and Empirical Issues. Berlin: De Gruyter, 55-78. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  48. Lombardi Vallauri, E. (2016). Insubordinated Conditionals in Spoken and Non-Spoken Italian. In N. Evans & H. Watanabe (Eds): Insubordination. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  49. Maschler, Yael. (2018). The on-line emergence of Hebrew insubordinate she- (‘that/which/who’) clauses: A usage-based perspective on so-called ‘subordination’. Studies in Language, 42 (3), 669–707. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  50. Maschler, Y. (2020). The Insubordinate – Subordinate Continuum Prosody, Embodied Action, and the Emergence of Hebrew Complex Syntax. In Y. Maschler, S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Lindström & Leelo Keevallik (Eds): Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 87-126. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  51. Maschler, Y., Pekarek Doehler, S. Lindström, J. Keevallik, L. (Eds) (2020). Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  52. Maschler, Y. & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2022). Pseudo-cleft-like structures in Hebrew and French conversation: The syntax-lexicon-body interface. Lingua, 280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103397 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  53. Mithun, M. (2008). The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language, 84 (1), 69–119. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  54. Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–156. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  55. Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51 (1), 85–106. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  56. Mondada, L. (2019). Conventions de transcription pour la multimodalité (dernière version 2019: https://www.lorenzamondada.net/_files/ugd/ba0dbb_986ddd4993a04a57acf20ea06e2b9a34.pdf [Google Scholar]
  57. Nevile, M. (2015). The embodied turn in research on language and social interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48 (2), 121–151. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  58. Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A. & Thompson, S. A. (1996) (Eds): Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  59. Ogden, R. (2013). Clicks and percussives in English conversation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 43 (3), 299–320. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  60. Oloff, F. (2014). Analyse multimodale de complétions différées suite aux interventions collaboratives. In L. Mondada (Ed.): Corps en interaction: participation, spatialité, mobilité. Lyon: ENS Éditions, 107–143. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  61. Olsher, D. (2004). Talk and Gesture: The Embodied Completion of Sequential Actions in Spoken Interaction. In R. Gardner et J. Wagner (Eds): Second Language Conversations. London: Continuum, 221-245. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ono, T. & Thompson, S. A. (1995). What can conversation tell us about syntax? In P. W. Davis (Ed.): Alternative linguistics: descriptive and theoretical modes. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 213–271. [Google Scholar]
  63. Patard, A. (2014). Réflexions sur l’origine de l’insubordination. Le cas de trois insubordonnées hypothétiques du français. Langages, 196, 109–130. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  64. Pekarek Doehler, S., De Stefani, E. & Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). Time and Emergence in Grammar. Leftdislocation, right-dislocation, topicalization and hanging topic in French talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  65. Pekarek Doehler, S., Keevallik, L. & Li, X. (Eds) (2022). The grammar-body interface in social interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 1-3. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.875696. [Google Scholar]
  66. Pekarek Doehler, S. & Horlacher, A.-S. (à paraître). An interactional grammar of insubordination: the case of si- ‘if’-clauses. In J. Steensig et al. (Eds.): Grammar in Action: Building Comprehensive Grammars of Talk-in-Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins (Studies in Language and Social Interaction). [Google Scholar]
  67. Portes, C. & Bertrand, R. (2005). De la valeur interactionnelle du contour « continuatif » en français. Travaux interdisciplinaires du Laboratoire Parole et Langage, 24, 139–157. [Google Scholar]
  68. Riegel, M., Pellat, J.-C. & Rioul, R. (2009 [1994]). Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. [Google Scholar]
  69. Sansiñena, M., De Smet, H. & Cornillie, B. (2015). Between subordinate and insubordinate. Paths toward complementizer-initial main clauses. Journal of Pragmatics, 77, 3–19. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  70. Sansiñena, M. (2019). Patterns of (in)dependence. In K. Beijering, G. Kaltenböck & M. Sansiñena (Eds): Insubordination: Theoretical and Empirical Issues. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
  71. Schneider, S. (2007). Reduced Parenthetical Clauses as Mitigators: A corpus study of spoken French, Italian and Spanish. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  72. Skogmyr Marian, K. (2021). Initiating a complaint: change over time in French L2 speakers’ practices. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54, 163–182. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  73. Stoenica, I.-M. (2020). Actions et conduites mimo-gestuelles dans l’usage conversationnel des relatives en français. Berne: Lang. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  74. Stoenica, I.-M., Pekarek Doehler, S. & Horlacher, A.-S. (2020). Emergent complex noun phrases: On-line trajectories of ‘relativized’ NPs in French talk-in- interaction. In S. Thompson & Y. Ono (Eds): The ‘Noun Phrase’ across languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 43-70. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  76. Streeck, J. (2018). Grammaticalization and bodily action: do they go together? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51 (1), 26–32. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  77. Stivers, T. & Sidnell, J. (2005). Introduction: Multimodal interaction. Semiotica, 156 (1), 1–20. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  78. Van Valin, R. (1984). A typology of syntactic relations in clause linkage. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 542–558. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  79. Zinken, J. (2016). Chapitre ‘Nudging and Appealing’. In Requesting Responsibility: The Morality of Grammar in Polish and English Family Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press. [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.