oa The role of “puisque” in discourse debated: From polyphony to argumentation

References

1. Amossy, R.
   (22006): L’argumentation dans le discours. Paris: Colin.), pp.–.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Anscombre, J. -C.
   (1995): La théorie des Topoï: sémantique ou rhétorique ?Hermès (), pp.–. 10.4267/2042/15167
   https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/15167 [Google Scholar]
3. Anscombre, J. -C. & Ducrot, O.
   (31997): L’argumentation dans la langue. Sprimont: Mardaga.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Ariel, M.
   (1985): The discourse functions of given information. Theoretical Linguistics, pp.–. 10.1515/thli.1985.12.s1.99
   https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1985.12.s1.99 [Google Scholar]
5. AristotleGeorge A. Kennedy
   Aristotle (2007): On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Translated byGeorge A. Kennedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published in the 4th century B.C.E.)
   [Google Scholar]
6. Benz, A. & Jasinskaja, K.
   (eds.) (2017): Questions under Discussion: From Sentence to Discourse. Special issue ofDiscourse Processes. Issue: Questions under Discussion, pp.–. 10.1080/0163853X.2017.1316038
   https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1316038 [Google Scholar]
7. Blakemore, D.
   (1987): Semantic constraints on relevance. Blackwell.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Blakemore, D.
   (1995): Relevance theory, in: Handbook of Pragmatics. John Benjamins.10.1075/hop.m.rel1
   https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.m.rel1 [Google Scholar]
9. Blakemore, D.
   (2000): Indictors and procedures: nevertheless and but. Journal of Linguistics (2000), pp.–. 10.1017/S0022226700008355
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700008355 [Google Scholar]
10. Borzi, C./Detges, U.
    (2011): Ya que, un marcador polifónico, in:H. Aschenberg & O. Loureda Lamas (eds.): Marcadores del discurso. De la descripción a la definición. Frankfurt: Vervuert, pp.–. 10.31819/9783865278760‑010
    https://doi.org/10.31819/9783865278760-010 [Google Scholar]
11. Breitholtz, E.
    (2020): Enthymemes and Topoi in Dialogue: The use of common sense in reasoning in conversation. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Brown, P. & Levinson, S.
    (1987): Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
13. Degand, L. & Fagard, B.
    (2012): Competing connectives in the causal domain. The French car and parce que. Journal of Pragmatics (), pp.–. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.12.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.12.009 [Google Scholar]
14. Detges, U.
    (2014): Puisque. L’état de la question, in:W. Weidenbusch (ed.): Diskursmarker, Konnektoren, Modalwörter. Marqueurs de discours, connecteurs, adverbes et particules modales. Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Ducrot, O.
    (1983): Puisque: essai de description polyphonique, in:M. Herslund, O. Mordrup, (eds.): Analyses grammaticales du français. Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Ducrot, O.
    (1984): Le dire et le dit. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Ducrot, O.
    (1988): Topoï et formes topique. Bulletin d’études de la linguistique française, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Fillmore, Ch.The Linguistic Society of Korea
    (1982): Frame semantics, in: Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. byThe Linguistic Society of Korea. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Franken, N.
    (1996): Pour une nouvelle description de puisque. Revue Romane, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Grice, P.
    (1975): Logic and Conversation, in:P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.): Speech acts (= Syntax and Semantics. Vol.). New York: Academic Press, pp.–. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
21. Groupe Lambda-l
    Groupe Lambda-l 1975 Car, parce que, puisque. Revue Romane, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Jivanyan, H.
    (2019): Un puisque comme parce que ? Pouvoir justificatif, statuts informationnel et communicatif de puisque. Nouveau cahiers de linguistique française, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Koch, P. & Oesterreicher, W.
    (22011): Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania: Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch. Romanistische Arbeitshefte 31. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110252620
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110252620 [Google Scholar]
24. van Kuppevelt, J.
    (1995): Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. Journal of Linguistics, pp.–. 10.1017/S002222670000058X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222670000058X [Google Scholar]
25. Martin, R.
    (1973): Le mot puisque: notions d’adverbes de phrase et de présupposition sémantique. Studia Neophilologia (), pp.–. 10.1080/00393277308587551
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00393277308587551 [Google Scholar]
26. Moeschler, J.
    (1989): Pragmatic Connectives, Argumentative Coherence and Relevance. Argumentation, pp.–. 10.1007/BF00128944
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128944 [Google Scholar]
27. Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
    (1970): Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique. Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles. (English version: The new rhetoric. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969)
    [Google Scholar]
28. Recanati, F.
    (2004): Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Rumelhart, D.
    (1980): Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition, in: R. Spiro, B. Bruce, & W. Brewer (eds.): Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Simons, M., Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D. & Roberts, C.
    (2010): What projects and why. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) , pp.–. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. 10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584 [Google Scholar]
31. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.
    (11986 21995): Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
32. von Stutterheim, C. & Klein, W.
    (1989): Referential movement in descriptive and narrative discourse. North-Holland Linguistic Series: Linguistic Variations, pp.–. Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑0‑444‑87144‑2.50005‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-87144-2.50005-7 [Google Scholar]
33. Sweetser, E.
    (1990): From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
34. Toulmin, S.
    (22003 11958): The uses of argument. Updated edition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511840005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005 [Google Scholar]
35. Zufferey, S.
    (2012): “Car, parce que, puisque” revisited: The empirical studies on French causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, pp.–. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.018 [Google Scholar]
36. Zufferey, S.
    (2014): “Givenness, procedural meaning and connectives. The case of French puisque. Journal of Pragmatics, pp.–. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.022
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.022 [Google Scholar]
37. Zufferey, S. & Cartoni, B.
    (2012): English and French causal connectives in contrast. Languages in Contrast (), pp.–. 10.1075/lic.12.2.06zuf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.12.2.06zuf [Google Scholar]