EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 191 (2024) SHS Web Conf., 191 (2024) 10003 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 191, 2024
9e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 10003
Number of page(s) 19
Section Psycholinguistique et acquisition
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202419110003
Published online 28 June 2024
  1. Alotaibi, Y. (2022). Causative Constructions in Modern Standard Arabic. International Journal of English Linguistics, 12(3), 46–57. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Athanasopoulos, P., & Casaponsa, A. (2020). The Whorfian brain: Neuroscientific approaches to linguistic relativity. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 37(5–6), 393–412. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Comajoan-Colomé, L. (2020). The aspect hypothesis and the acquisition of L2 past morphology in the last 20 years: A state-of-the-scholarship review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(5), 1137–1167 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bellingham, E., Evers, S., Kawachi, K., Mitchell, A., Park, S.-H., Stepanova, A., & Bohnemeyer, J. (2020). Exploring the Representation of Causality Across Languages: Integrating Production, Comprehension and Conceptualization Perspectives. In E. A. Bar-Asher Siegal & N. Boneh (Éds.), Perspectives on Causation: Selected Papers from the Jerusalem 2017 Workshop (p. 75–119). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3-030–34308-8_3 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bender, A. (2020). What is causal cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00003 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Ben Gharbia, A. (2010). L’expression de la causation en français et en arabe: Une comparaison à la lumière de la linguistique cognitive. Travaux de linguistique, 61(2), 31–61. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bohnemeyer, J., Enfield, N. J., Essegbey, J., & Kita, S. (2010). The macro-event property. Event representation in language and cognition, 43–67. [Google Scholar]
  8. Brustad, K. E. (2000). The Syntax of Spoken Arabic: A Comparative Study of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian, and Kuwaiti Dialects. Georgetown University Press. [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2011). Bidirectional cross-linguistic influence in event conceptualization? Expressions of Path among Japanese learners of English*. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728910000064 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cowell, M. W. (1964). A Reference Grammar of Syrian Arabic. Georgetown University Press. [Google Scholar]
  11. Camps, J.F. (2023) La classification hiérarchique ascendante. Dans C. Solier, L. Soulier, & N. Ezzedine (Dir), Introductions aux statistiques en sciences du langage. Dunod [Google Scholar]
  12. Escamilla, R. M. (2012). An Updated Typology of Causative Constructions: Form-Function Mappings in Hupa (California Athabaskan), Chungli Ao (Tibeto-Burman) and Beyond [Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1319509994/abstract/3756330F9564EA0PQ/1 [Google Scholar]
  13. Flecken, M., Carroll, M., Weimar, K., & Von Stutterheim, C. (2015). Driving Along the Road or Heading for the Village? Conceptual Differences Underlying Motion Event Encoding in French, German, and French–German L2 Users. The Modern Language Journal, 99(S1), 100–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–4781.2015.12181.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ford, D. C. (2009). The three forms of Arabic causative. OPAL, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  15. Givón, T. (1980). The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language, 4.3, 333–377. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Glanville, P. J. (2018). Causation and actionalization. In The lexical semantics of the Arabic verb (pp. 109–135). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Granget, C. (2015). Pourquoi le présent n’est-il pas si simple d’un point de vue psycholinguistique?: Une perspective anglophone sur le français L2. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 6 (1), 107–148. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Haiman, J. (1983). Iconic and economic motivation. Language, 59(4), 781–819. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hallman, P. (2006). Causativity and transitivity in Arabic. Retrieved May, 6, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hamon, S. (2006). La cause linguistique. Linx. Revue des linguistes de l’université Paris X Nanterre, 54, Article 54. https://doi.org/10.4000/linx.502 [Google Scholar]
  21. Holes, C. (2004). Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties (Georgetown Classics in Arabic Language and Linguistics). Georgetown University Press. [Google Scholar]
  22. Jordens, Peter (2013). Dummies and auxiliaries in the acquisition of L1 and L2 Dutch. In E. Blom, I. van de Craats & J. Verhagen (Éd.), Dummy auxiliaries in rst and second language acquisition (p. 341–368). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kawachi, K., Bellingham, E., & Bohnemeyer, J. (2018). Different types of causality and clause linkage in English, Japanese, Sidaama, and Yucatec Maya. 18th National Conference of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association, 47–59. [Google Scholar]
  24. Klein, W. (1984). Zweitspracherwerb: Eine Einführung. Königstein: Athenäum. [Google Scholar]
  25. Maechler M, Rousseeuw P, Struyf A, Hubert M, Hornik K (2023). cluster: Cluster Analysis Basics and Extensions. R package version 2.1.6 — For new features, see the ‘NEWS’ and the ‘Changelog’ file in the package source), https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cluster. [Google Scholar]
  26. Majid, A., Boster, J. S., & Bowerman, M. (2008). The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition, 109(2), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.009 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Majid, A., Sanford, A. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). The linguistic description of minimal social scenarios affects the extent of causal inference making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(6), 918–932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.016 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Malchukov A., Haspelmath M. & B. Comrie. (2010). ‘Ditransitive constructions: a typological overview’, ‘A. Malchukov, M. Haspelmath & B. Comrie (éds.), Studies in Ditransitive Constructions. A Comparative Handbook, 1–64. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
  29. Makowski, D., Ben-Shachar, M. S., Patil, I., & Lüdecke, D. (2020). Methods and algorithms for correlation analysis in R. Journal of Open Source Software, 5(51), 2306. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02306 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Myles, Florence (2004). From data to theory: The over-representation of linguistic knowledge in SLA. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 139–168. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Nazarenko, A. (2000). La cause et son expression en français. Ophrys. [Google Scholar]
  32. Papafragou, A., Hulbert, J., & Trueswell, J. (2008). Does language guide event perception? Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 108(1), 155–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.02.007 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Park, H. I. (2022). The Role of Language in Expressing Agentivity in Caused Motion Events: A Cross-Linguistic Investigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: the acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  35. R Cor. Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [Google Scholar]
  36. Rastelli, S. (2023). Telic for whom? The Lexical Underspecification Hypothesis.Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique,68(2), 191–228. doi:10.1017/cnj.2023.3 [Google Scholar]
  37. Shibatani, Masayoshi. (1973). A linguistic study of causative constructions. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Californie, Berkeley. [Google Scholar]
  38. Shibatani, M. (1976). The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In The grammar of causative constructions (p. 1–40). Brill. [Google Scholar]
  39. Smith, C. (1991). The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. Song, J. J. (2001). Toward a typology of causative constructions. LINCOM Europa. [Google Scholar]
  41. Soroli, E., Hickmann, M., & Hendriks, H. (2019). Casting an eye on motion events: Eye tracking and its implications for linguistic typology (p. 250–288). https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.66.07sor [Google Scholar]
  42. Stathi, K. (2023). Granularity in the Verbalization of Events and Objects. In Slcs.233. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://benjamins.com/catalog/slcs.233 [Google Scholar]
  43. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics (Vol. 2). MIT press. [Google Scholar]
  44. Vaissie, P., Monge, A., & Husson, F. (2021). Factoshiny: Perform Factorial Analysis from ‘FactoMineR’ with a Shiny Application. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Factoshiny. [Google Scholar]
  45. Vendler, Z. (1967). Verbs and time. Psychological Review, 66, 143–160 [Google Scholar]
  46. Wang, Y., & Wei, L. (2021). Cognitive restructuring in the multilingual mind: Language-specific effects on processing efficiency of caused motion events in Cantonese–English–Japanese speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(4), 730–745. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  47. Wickham, H. (2011). “The Split-Apply-Combine Strategy for Data Analysis.” Journal of Statistical Software, 40(1), 1–29. https://www.jstatsoft.org/v40/i01/. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  48. Wolff, P. (2003). Direct causation in the linguistic coding and individuation of causal events. Cognition, 88(1), 1–48. [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.