EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 191 (2024) SHS Web Conf., 191 (2024) 12005 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 191, 2024
9e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 12005
Number of page(s) 14
Section Sémantique
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202419112005
Published online 28 June 2024
  1. Anscombre, J.-C. (1975). Il était une fois une princesse aussi belle que bonne. Semantikos, 1, 1, 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anscombre, J.-C. (1976). Il était une fois une princesse aussi belle que bonne II. Semantikos, 1, 2, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  3. Anscombre, J.-C. (1995). Topique or not topique: formes topiques intrinsèques et formes topiques extrinsèques. Journal of Pragmatics, 24, 115–141. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Anscombre, J.-C. (2009). La comédie de la polyphonie et ses personnages. Langue Française, 164, 4, 11–31. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Anscombre, J.-C. & Ducrot, O. (1977). Deux mais en français? Lingua, 43, 23–40. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Anscombre, J. C. et Ducrot, O. (1983). L’argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Mardaga. [Google Scholar]
  7. Asher, N. & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Besnard, P. & Hunter, A. (2008). Elements of Argumentation. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bod, R., Hay, J. & Jannedy, S. (2003). Probabilistic Linguistics. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Byrne, R. M. J. (2005). The Rational Imagination. How People Create Alternatives to Reality. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Carel, M. (2011). L’entrelacement argumentatif. Lexique, discours et blocs sémantiques. Paris: Honoré Champion. [Google Scholar]
  12. Crupi, V., Fitelson, B. et Tentori, K.(2008). Probability, confirmation and the conjunction fallacy. Thinking and Reasoning, 14, 182–199. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dayal, V. (2016). Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ducrot, O. (1972). Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ducrot, O. (1980). Les échelles argumentatives. Paris: Éditions de Minuit. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ducrot, O. (1988). Topoi et formes topiques. Bulletin d’Etudes de Linguistique Française (Tokyo), 22, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  17. Eckardt, R & Beltrama, A. (2019). Evidentials and questions. Dans C. Pinon (éd), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 12, 121–155. [Google Scholar]
  18. van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B. et Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Erk, K. (2022). The probabilistic turn in semantics and pragmatics. Annual Review of Linguistics, 8, 101–121. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 280, 20–32. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fitelson, B. (2001). Studies in Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Thèse de doctorat, University of Wisconsin. [Google Scholar]
  22. Franke, M. et Jäger, G. (2016). Probabilistic pragmatics, or why Bayes’rule is probably important for pragmatics. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 35, 1, 3–44 [Google Scholar]
  23. Groenendjk, J. & Stokhoff, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Thèse de doctorat. Université d’Amsterdam. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J. et Roelofsen, F. (2019). Inquisitive Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Grusdt, B., Lassiter, D. et Franke, M. (2022). Probabilistic modeling of rational communication with conditionals. Semantics and Pragmatics, 15, 13, 1–59. [Google Scholar]
  26. Howson, C. & Urbach, P. (2006). Scientific Reasoning. The Bayesian Approach. Chicago et La Salle: Open Court, 3ème édition. [Google Scholar]
  27. Jayez, J. (2005). How many are several? Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 19, 187–209 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Jayez, J. & Tovena, L. (2008). Presque and almost: how argumentation derives from comparative meaning. Dans O. Bonami & P. Cabredo Hofherr (éds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7, 217–240. [Google Scholar]
  29. Jayez, J. & Winterstein, G. (2013). Additivity and probability. Lingua, 132, 85–102. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kaufmann, S., Over, D. E. et Sharma, G. (2023). Conditionals. Logic, Linguistics and Psychology. Cham (Suisse): Palgrave macmillan. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kennedy, C. (2011). Ambiguity and vagueness: An overview. Dans Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, C. et Portner, P. (éds), Semantics. An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol 1, 507–535. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lassiter, D. (2016). Graded Modality. Qualitative and Quantitative Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  33. Martin, P. (2009). Intonation du français. Paris: Armand Colin. [Google Scholar]
  34. Merin, A. (1999). Information, relevance and social decision-Making. Dans L. S. Moss, J. Ginzburg & M. de Rijke (éds), Logic, Language and Computation Vol. 2. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 179–221. [Google Scholar]
  35. Mundici, D. (2021). Deciding Koopman’s qualitative probability. Artificial Intelligence, 299, 103524. [Google Scholar]
  36. Oaksford, M. et Chater, N. (2007). Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Oaksford, M. et Chater, N. (2020). New paradigms in the psychology of reasoning. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 305–330. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. Pearl, J. (2009). Causality. Models, Reasoning and Inference. Cambridge (NY): Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. Pollock, J. L. (1995). Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. Radvansky, G. A. et Zacks J. M. (2014). Event Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. Renkema, J. (2009). The Texture of Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. Rett, J. (2015). The Semantics of Evaluativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  43. Schank, R. C. et Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  44. Schank, R. C. (1982). Dynamic Memory. A Theory of Reminding and Learning in Computers and People. Cambridge (NY): Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  45. Schulz, M. (2017). Counterfactuals and Probability. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  46. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge (NY): Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  47. Skovgaard-Olsen, N., Collins, P., Krzyżanowska, K., Hahn, U. et Klauer, K. C. (2019). Cancellation, negation, and rejection. Cognitive Psychology, 108, 42–71. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  48. Solt, S. (2015). Vagueness and imprecision: Empirical foundations. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1, 107–127. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  49. Tentori, K., Crupi, V., Bonini, N. & Osherson, D. (2007). Comparison of confirmation measures. Cognition, 103, 107–119. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  50. Walton, D. (2013). Methods of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  51. Winterstein, G. (2010). La dimension probabiliste des marqueurs de discours. Nouvelles perspectives sur l’argumentation dans la langue. Thèse de doctorat. Université Paris Diderot. [Google Scholar]
  52. Zeevat, H. et Schmitz, H.-C. (éds) (2015). Bayesian Natural Language Semantics and Pragmatics. Cham (Suisse): Springer. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  53. Zenker, F. (éd) (2013). Bayesian Argumentation. The practical side of probability. Dordrecht: Springer. [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.