EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 191 (2024) SHS Web Conf., 191 (2024) 12008 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 191, 2024
9e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 12008
Number of page(s) 14
Section Sémantique
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202419112008
Published online 28 June 2024
  1. Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2003. A Grammar of Tariana, from Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge Grammatical Descriptions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, L. B. 1986. Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, 273–312. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bally, Ch. 1965. Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Berne: Francke. [Google Scholar]
  5. Benveniste, E. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale, tome I, Paris: Gallimard. [Google Scholar]
  6. Benveniste, E. 1974. Problèmes de linguistique générale, tome II, Paris: Gallimard [Google Scholar]
  7. Bergqvist, H. & S. Kittilä (eds.). 2019. Evidentiality, egophoricity and engagement. Studies in Diversity Linguistics 30. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3968344 [Google Scholar]
  8. Boye, K. 2012. Epistemic Meaning. A Crosslinguistic Functional-cognitive Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
  9. Boye, K. 2012. Epistemic Meaning. A crosslinguistic and Functional-cognitive Study, Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 43, De Gruyter Mouton. [Google Scholar]
  10. Colas-Blaise, M. et al. (eds). 2016. L’énonciation aujourd’hui, un concept clé des sciences du langage, Lambert-Lucas. [Google Scholar]
  11. Comrie, B. 1976. AspectiAn introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  12. Comrie, B. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Culioli, A. 1990. Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation, Opérations et représentations, Tome 1. Paris: Ophrys. [Google Scholar]
  14. Culioli, A. 1999. Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation, Formalisation et opérations de repérage, Tome 2, Paris: Ophys. [Google Scholar]
  15. Curry, H. B. & R. Feys. 1958. Combinatory logic (Vol. I). Amsterdam: North-Holland. [Google Scholar]
  16. de Haan, F. 1999. Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality: Setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 18: 83–101 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dendale, P. 1991. Le marquage épistémique de l’énoncé. Esquisse d’une théorie avec applications au français. Thèse de doctorat, UIA - Université d’Anvers, Ann Harbor, Dissertations Abstracts International (DA 9213900). [Google Scholar]
  18. Dendale, P. 2022. Evidential markers in French. In Wiemer, B. & J. I. Marín-Arrese (Ed.), Evidential marking in european languages: toward a unitary comparative account, 171–233. Berlin: De Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  19. Dendale, P. & W. De Mulder. 1996. Déduction ou abduction: le cas de devoir inférentiel. In Zlatka Guentchéva (ed) 1996, L’énonciation médiatisée, 305–318. Louvain: Peeters. [Google Scholar]
  20. Dendale, P. & L. Tasmowski. 2001. Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions. Journal of’ Pragmat1cs 33: 339–348. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dendale, P. & Ph. Kreutz. 2021. Certainement: adverbe épistémico-modal ou évidentiel? Le discours et la langue: revue de linguistique française et d’analyse du discours, 13/1: 49–76. [Google Scholar]
  22. Dendale, P. & J. Miecznikowski. 2023. On inferential evidentiality: Is ‘evidential’ inference abductive? In Carretero, M., J. I. Marin-Arrese, E. Dominguez Romero, V. Martín de la Rosa (Ed.), Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality, 17–72. Peter Lang. [Google Scholar]
  23. Desclés, J-P. 2016. A cognitive and conceptual approach to tense and aspect markers. In Guentchéva, Z., Aspectuality and Temporality, Descriptive and theoretical issues, 27–60. John Benjamins Company. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Desclés, J-P. 2018. Epistemic modality and evidentiality from an enunciative perspective. In Guentchéva, Z., Epistemic modalities in cross-linguistique perspective, and evidentiality, 383–401. John Benjamins Company. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Desclés, J-P. & Z. Guentchéva. 2015. Inference processes expressed by languages: deduction of a probable consequent vs. Abduction. In Viviane Arigne and Christiane Rocq-Migette (eds.), Theorization and Representations in Linguistics, 241–265. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  26. Desclés, J-P. G. Guibert & B. Sauzay. 2016. Calculs de significations par une logique d’opérateurs. Toulouse: Cépadues. [Google Scholar]
  27. Desclés, J-P. & A. Pascu. 2022. Quasi-Topological Structure of Extensions Within Logic of Typicals ans Atypicals –LTA). In J.-Y. Beziou, J.-P. Desclés, A. Moktefi, A. Pascu (Ed.), Logic in Question, 611–656. Birkhäuser. [Google Scholar]
  28. Desclés, J-P. & A. Vinzerich. 2008. Epistemic Modalities and Temporal Reference Framesb International Congress of Linguistics, CIL XVIII July 24, 2008, Séoul: Korea University. [Google Scholar]
  29. Deutscher, G. 2002. On the misuse of the notion of ‘abduction’ in linguistics. Journal of Linguistics 38(03):469-485 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Floyd, S, E. Norcliffe & L. San Roque (eds). 2018. Egophoricity, Vol. 118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Friedman, V. 1986. Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, 168–181. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. [Google Scholar]
  32. Friedman, V. 2000. Confirmative/nonconfirmative in Balkan Slavic, Balkan Romance, and Albanian with additional observations on Turkish, Romani, Georgian and Lak, in Lars Johanson & Bo Utas (eds.), 329–366. [Google Scholar]
  33. Guentchéva, Z. (ed). 1996, L’énonciation médiatisée. Louvain: Peeters. [Google Scholar]
  34. Guilbaud, G. Th. 1985. Leçons d’à peu près. Paris: Christian Bourgeois éditeur [Google Scholar]
  35. Hagège, C. 1974. Les noms logophoriques, BSL, 69/1: 287–310. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hagège, C. 1986. La structure des langues. QSJ? Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hagège, C. 1995. Le rôle des médiaphoriques dans la langue et dans le discours. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, t. XC/1: 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  38. Holvoet, A. 2018. Epistemic modality, evidentiality, quatativity and echic use. In Guentchéva, Z., Epistemic modalities in cross-linguistique perspective, and evidentiality, 242–258. John Benjamins Company [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. Ifantidou, E. 2001. Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. Johanson, L. 2000. Turkic indirectives. In Lars Johanson & Bo Utas (eds.), Evidentials:Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages, 61–87. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
  41. Johanson, L. & Bo Utas (eds.). 2000. Evidentials:Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. Kronning, H. 1966. Modalité, cognition et polysémie: sémantique du verbe modal devoir. Uppsala:Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. [Google Scholar]
  43. Lee, D. D. 1938. Conceptual Implications of an Indian Language, Philosophy of Science 5, 89–102. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  44. Nichols, J. 2011. Ingush Grammar. Berkeley,Los Angeles, London: University of California Press (https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3nn7z6w5) [Google Scholar]
  45. Nuyts, J. 2001, Epistemic Modality, Language and Conceptualization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  46. Palmer, F. R., 1986. Mood and Modality (1st edition). Cambridge University Press [Google Scholar]
  47. Palmer, F. R., 2001, Mood and Modality (2nd edition). Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  48. Papafragou, Anna. 2000. Modality: Issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Oxford: Elsevier. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  49. Pauliny, E. 1967 [1948]. La phrase eet l’énonciation. Recueil Linguistique de Bratislava I, 59–66; repris dans Vashek, J. A Prague School Reader in Linguistiqcs, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 391–397. [Google Scholar]
  50. Peirce, Ch. S. 1966. The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce [1839–1914] (8 vols.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  51. Pólya, G. 1958. Les mathématiques et le raisonnement “plausible” (traduction française). Paris: Editions Jacques Gabay. [Google Scholar]
  52. Pottier, B. 2000, Représentations mentales et catégorisations linguistiques, Louvain-Paris: Editions Peeters. [Google Scholar]
  53. Pottier, B. 2012, Images et modèles en Sémantique, Paris: Honoré Champion. [Google Scholar]
  54. Simon, C. 2021. La catégorie égophorique dans les langues de l’Amdo (Tibet). Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 116/1: 281–326. [Google Scholar]
  55. Van der Auwera, J. & Vl. Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map, Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124. [Google Scholar]
  56. Vinzerich, A. 2007. Étude linguistique sur les modalités aléthiques et épistémiques. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Paris-Sorbonne. [Google Scholar]
  57. Wiemer, B. 2018. Evidentials and epistemic modality, in Alexandra Y. Aikheinvald (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality, 85–108. Oxford: University Press . [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  58. Willett, Th. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1): 51–97. [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.