EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 191 (2024) SHS Web Conf., 191 (2024) 12006 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 191, 2024
9e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 12006
Number of page(s) 17
Section Sémantique
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202419112006
Published online 28 June 2024
  1. Aikhenvald, A. (2012). The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology, 16, 435–485. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Asher, N. (1993). Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Dordrecht, Boston et London: Kluwer. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Asher, N., Vieu, L. (2005). Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations. Lingua, 115, 591–610. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Büring, D. (2014). (Contrastive) Topic. In C. Féry et I. Shin (éds). Handbook of information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 64–85. [Google Scholar]
  5. Champollion, L. (2015). Distributivity, collectivity and cumulativity. In L. Matthewson, C. Meier., H. Rullmann et T. Zimmermann (éds), Companion to Semantics, Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 1–38. [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark H., Haviland S. (1977). Comprehension and the Given-New Contract. In R. Freedle (éd), Discourse Production and Comprehension. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1–40. [Google Scholar]
  7. Corteel, C., Van Peteghem L., (2015). SN même vs. SN lui-même: quand même doit-il s’appuyer sur un pronom?. Zeitschrift für französische Sprache une Literatur, 125, 115–133. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Declerck, R. (1988). Studies in copular sentences, clefts and pseudo-clefts. Leuven: Leuven University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ducrot, O. (1980). Les échelles argumentatives. Paris: Editions de Minuit. [Google Scholar]
  10. Fauconnier, G. (1975). Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 6(3), 353–375. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gast, V., Van der Auwera, J. (2011). Scalar additive operators in the languages of Europe. Language, 87(1), 2–54. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hobbs, J. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3, 67–90. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hoeksema, J. (1998). Corpus study of negative polarity items. In IV-V Jornades de corpus lingüístics 1996–1997. Barcelona: IULA, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 67–86. [Google Scholar]
  14. Horn, L. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Jasinskaja, K., Karagjosova, E. (2020). Rhetorical relations. In D. Gutzmann (éd). The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kay, P. (1990). Even. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 59–111. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kleiber, G. (1998). Tout et ses domaines: sur la structure tout + déterminant + N. In A. Englebert, M. Pierrard, L. Rosier et D. Van Raemdonck (éds). La ligne claire. De la linguistique à la grammaire. Mélanges offerts à M. Wilmet à l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire. Bruxelles: De Boeck Supérieur. 87–98. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kleiber, G., Vassiliadou, H. (2009). Sur la relation d’Élaboration: des approches intuitives aux approches formelles. Journal of French Language Studies, 19, 183–205. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. König, E. (1991). The meaning of focus particles. A comparative perspective. London and New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  20. Krifka, L. (2012). Information structure: overview and linguistic issues. In M. Krifka et R. Musan (éds). The expression of information structure, Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 1–45 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Lambrecht, K. (2001). A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics, 39–3, 463–516. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lambrecht, K. (2002). Topic, focus and secondary predication: the French presentational relative construction. In C. Beyssade, R. Bok-Bennema, F. Drijkoningen et P. Monachesi (éds). Romance languages and linguistic theory 2000. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 171–212. [Google Scholar]
  24. Mann, T., Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mari, A., Tovena, L. (2006). An additive and a scalar particle: the case of the Italian ‘neppure’ and its French counterparts. In J. P. Montreuil et C. Nishida (éds). New Perspectives on Romance Linguistics. Vol. 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 187–200. [Google Scholar]
  26. Muller, C. (1978). La négation explétive dans les constructions complétives. Langue française, 39, 76–103. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Prince, E. (1986). On the syntactic marking of the presupposed open proposition. Papers from the 22nd regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 208–222. [Google Scholar]
  28. Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27(11), 53–94. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. Riester, A., Brunetti L., De Kuthy K. (2018). Annotation guidelines for Questions Under Discussion and Information Structure. In E. Adamou, K. Haude et M. Van Hove (éds). Information Structure in Lesser-described Languages. Studies in Prososdy and Syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 403–444. [Google Scholar]
  30. Riester, A. (2019). Constructing QUD-Trees. In M. Zimmerman, K. Heusinger et Onea, E. (éds). Questions in Discourse. Vol. 2. Pragmatics. Leiden: Brill, 164–193. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Roberts, C. (2012). Information structure: toward an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5, 1–69. [Google Scholar]
  32. Rullmann, H. (1997). Even, polarity and scope. In M. Gibson, G. Wiebe et G. Libben (éds). Papers in experimental and theoretical linguistics. Vol. 4, Edmonton: University of Alberta. 40–64. [Google Scholar]
  33. Stede, M. (2008). RST Revisited: Disentangling Nuclearity. In C. Fabricius-Hansen et W. Ramm (éds). ‘Subordination’ and ‘coordination’ in sentence and text from a cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 33–58. [Google Scholar]
  34. Tovena, L. (2007). Comment devenir scalaire. Travaux de linguistique, 54,109–119. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. Traugott, E. (2010). Revisting subjectification and intersubjectification. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte et H. Cuyckens (éds). Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Berlin: De Mouton Gruyter, 29–70. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Visconti, J. (2005). On the origins of scalar particles in Italian. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 6(2), 237–261. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Van Kuppevelt, J. (1995a). Main structure and side structure in discourse. Linguistics, 33, 809–833. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. Van Kuppevelt, J. (1995b). Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. Journal of Linguistics, 31, 109–147. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. Zeevat, H. (2009). Only as a mirative particle. Sprache und Daten Verarbeitung, 33, 179–196. [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.