EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 232 (2026) SHS Web Conf., 232 (2026) 12011 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 232, 2026
10e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 12011
Number of page(s) 16
Section Sémantique
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202623212011
Published online 15 June 2026
  1. Elsig M. Grammatical Variation across Space and Time: The French Interrogative System. John Benjamins Publishing; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  2. Boucher P. L’interrogation partielle en français : l’interface syntaxe / sémantique. Syntaxe Sémant. 2010;11(1):55–82. doi:10.3917/ss.011.0055 [Google Scholar]
  3. Gadet F. Le français ordinaire. A. Colin; 1989. [Google Scholar]
  4. Delaveau A, Cappeau P, Dagnac A. Les phrases interrogatives. In: Abeillé A, Godard D, eds. La Grande Grammaire du Français. Vol 2. 1st ed. Actes Sud/Imprimeries nationales Éditions; 2021:1402–1437. [Google Scholar]
  5. Radford A. Pseudo-relatives and the unity of subject-raising. Arch Linguist. 1975;(6):32–64. [Google Scholar]
  6. Pierrard M. Il n’y a que X qui: Remarques sur la syntaxe de “il y a” marquant l’exclusivité. Rev Romane. 1985;20:46–55. [Google Scholar]
  7. Lambrecht K. Presentational cleft constructions in spoken French. In: Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. John Benjamins Publishing Company; 1988:135–180. Accessed April 22, 2025. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1075/tsl.18.08lam/html [Google Scholar]
  8. Karssenberg L. Ya Les Oiseaux Qui Chantent. A Corpus Analysis of French Il y a Clefts. PhD thesis. KU Leuven; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  9. Verwimp L, Lahousse K. Definite il y a-clefts in spoken French. J Fr Lang Stud. 2016;27. doi:10.1017/S0959269516000132 [Google Scholar]
  10. Choi-Jonin I, Lagae V. Il y a des gens ils ont mauvais caractères. A propos du rôle de il y a. In: Murguía A, ed. Sens et Références, Mélanges Georges Kleiber. Gunter Narr Verlag; 2005:39-66. Accessed January 6, 2026. https://hal.science/hal-04307964 [Google Scholar]
  11. Krapova I, Cinque G. On noun clausal “complements” and their non-unitary nature. Ann CaFoscari Ser Occident. 2016;50:77–108. [Google Scholar]
  12. Doetjes JS, Rebuschi G, Rialland A. Cleft Sentences. In: Corblin F, de Swart HE, eds. Handbook of French Semantics. CSLI Lecture Notes. CSLI Publications; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  13. Karssenberg L. French c’est clefts and il y a clefts: similarities and differences. In: Romanisches Seminar. 2015. [Google Scholar]
  14. Lambrecht K. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge University Press; 1994. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  15. Defrancq B. L’interrogative enchâssée. Structure et interprétation. De Boeck Supérieur; 2005. https://www.cairn.info/l-interrogative-enchassee--9782801113653.htm [Google Scholar]
  16. Destruel E, Donaldson B. The L2 Acquisition of French Interrogatives: Pragmatic Inferences in Clefted wh-Questions. Languages. 2021;6(4):165. doi:10.3390/languages6040165 [Google Scholar]
  17. Léard JM. Les gallicismes. Etude syntaxique et sémantique. De Boeck Supérieur; 1992. doi:10.3917/dbu.leard.1992.01 [Google Scholar]
  18. Jakubíček M, Kilgarriff A, Kovář V, Rychlý P, Suchomel V. The TenTen Corpus Family. In: 7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference CL. 2013:125–127. Accessed March 4, 2025. https://www.muni.cz/en/research/publications/1120431 [Google Scholar]
  19. Thiberge G, Brunetti L, Fliessbach J. Différences fonctionnelles entre quasi-synonymes : les interrogatives de raison en français. SHS Web Conf. 2024;191:14001. doi:10.1051/shsconf/202419114001 [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kratzer A. What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguist Philos. 1977;1(3):337–355. doi:10.1007/BF00353453 [Google Scholar]
  21. Han CH, Siegel L. Syntactic and Semantic Conditions on NPI Licensing in Questions. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. 1996:177–192. Accessed January 18, 2025. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Syntactic-and-Semantic-Conditions-on-NPI-Licensing-Conferenc-Siegel/cd741f8ae75dfe8caf3bbbd4bd14e52234f787ad [Google Scholar]
  22. Destruel E. The French c’est-cleft: an empirical study on its meaning and use. Piñón C, ed. Empir Issues Syntax Semant. 2012;9:95–112. [Google Scholar]
  23. Davidse K. A constructional approach to clefts. 2000;38(6):1101–1131. doi:10.1515/ling.2000.022 [Google Scholar]
  24. Destruel E. The pragmatics of French (non-)prototypical clefts: Influence of the type of question on naturalness and interpretation. J Pragmat. 2017;121:58–75. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2017.08.014 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hamlaoui F. Focus , contrast , and the syntax-phonology interface : The case of French cleft-sentences. Curr Issues Unity Divers Lang Collect Pap Sel 18th Int Congr Linguists. Published online 2008:54–96. [Google Scholar]
  26. Katz JJ. Semantic Theory. New York,: Harper & Row; 1972. [Google Scholar]
  27. Richard VD. Presuppositional and Dynamic Aspects of Questions. PhD thesis. Universiteit van Amsterdam & Université de Lorraine; 2026. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pesetsky D. Wh-In-Situ: Movement and Unselective Binding. In: Reuland E, ter Meulen A, eds. The Representation of (In)Definiteness. MIT Press; 1987. [Google Scholar]
  29. Zimmermann M. Quantifying question particles in German: syntactic effects on interpretation. Proc Sinn Bedeut. 2007;11:627–641. doi:10.18148/sub/2007.v11i0.669 [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.