Article In:
La Référence Floue
Edited by Laure Gardelle and Frédéric Landragin
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 47:2] 2024
► pp. 290323
References (62)
References
Barrett-Fox, R. (2018). A King Cyrus President: How Donald Trump’s Presidency Reasserts Conservative Christians’ Right to Hegemony. Humanity & Society, 42 1, 502–522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bazzanella, C. (2011). Indeterminacy in dialogue. Language and Dialogue, 1 ( 1 ), 21–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, A. (1984). Language Style as Audience Design. Language and Society, 13 (2), 145–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar
Charaudeau, P. & Maingueneau, D. (2002). Dictionnaire d’analyse du discours. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, A. D. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denison, D. (2017). Ambiguity and Vagueness in Historical Change. In M. Hundt, S. Mollin & S. E. Pfenninger (Eds.), The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectives, 292–318. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Detges, U. (2023). Does Reanalysis Need Ambiguity? In M. Bauer & A. Zirker (Eds.), Strategies of Ambiguity, 220–244. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1984). Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2010). Not hearing things — Hearer/listener categories in polylogues. mediAzioni, 9 1, [URL]
(2017). Participation as audience design. In C. R. Hoffmann & W. Bublitz (Eds.), Pragmatics of Social Media, 61–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrich, V. (2023). Enduring Ambiguity. In M. Bauer & A. Zirker (Eds.), Strategies of Ambiguity, 15–34. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N. & Wilkins, D. (2000). In the Mind’s Ear: Semantic Extensions of Perception Verbs in Australian Languages. Language, 76 1, 546–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D. & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11 1, 11–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, C. (1996). Les ambiguïtés du français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Gardelle, L. (2010). Article défini, pronoms personnels de 3e personne et démonstratifs: approche comparée de l’accès à la référence. Anglophonia, 14 (28), 33–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardelle, L. & Sorlin, S. (2015). Personal pronouns: An exposition. In L. Gardelle & S. Sorlin (Eds.), The Pragmatics of Personal Pronouns, 1–23. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardelle, L., Vincent-Durroux, L. & Vinckel-Roisin, H. (2023). Speakers, addressees and the referential process. In L. Gardelle, L. Vincent-Durroux & H. Vinckel-Roisin (Eds.), Reference. From conventions to pragmatics, 1–24. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1993). Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (3), 223–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Second-order empathy, pragmatic ambiguity, and irony. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figurative Language — Intersubjectivity and Usage, 19–40. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
(1977). Rahmen-Analyse: ein Versuch über die Organisation von Alltagserfahrungen. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. & Abbott, B. (2019). Introduction. In J. Gundel & B. Abbott (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Reference (online edn., Oxford Academic, 14 Mar. 2019), DOI logo, accessed 11 Nov. 2023.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Haney López, I. (2014). Dog whistle politics: how coded racial appeals have reinvented racism and wrecked the middle class. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 48 1, 41–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henderson, R. & McCready, E. (2018). How Dogwhistles Work. In S. Arai et al. (Eds.), New frontiers in artificial intelligence: JSAI-isAI Workshops, JURISIN, SKL, AI-Biz, LENLS, AAA, SCIDOCA, kNeXI, Tsukuba, Tokyo, November 13–15, 2017: revised selected papers, 231–240. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Íñigo-Mora, I. (2004). On the use of the personal pronoun we in communities. Journal of Language and Politics, 3 (1), 27–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnsen, L. A. (2019). La sous-détermination référentielle et les désignateurs vagues en français contemporain. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. & Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking, and creating common ground. A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17 (2), 331–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C. (2011). Ambiguity and vagueness: An overview. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics. An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, 507–535. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2001). L’ambiguïté en langue et en discours. In P. Bogaards, J. Rooryck & P. J. Smith (Eds.), Quitte ou double sens: Articles sur l’ambiguïté offerts à Ronald Landheer, 135–164. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). L’ambiguïté: définition, typologie. In L. Basset & F. Biville (Eds.), Les jeux et les ruses de l’ambiguïté volontaire dans les textes grecs et latins. Actes de la Table Ronde organisée à la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université Lumière-Lyon 2 (23–24 novembre 2000), 13–36. Lyon: MOM Éditions.Google Scholar
Keshet, E. & Schwarz, F. (2019). De Re/De Dicto. In J. Gundel & B. Abbott (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Reference (online edn., Oxford Academic, 14 Mar. 2019), DOI logo, accessed 11 Nov. 2023.Google Scholar
Kleiber, G. (1991). Paul est bronzé versus La peau de Paul est bronzée . In H. Stammerjohann (Ed.), Analyse et synthèse dans les langues romanes, 109–134. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
(2001). L’anaphore associative. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Koch, P. (1997). Diskurstraditionen: zu ihrem sprachtheoretischen Status und ihrer Dynamik. In B. Frank, Th. Haye & D. Tophinke (Eds.), Gattungen mittelalterlicher Schriftlichkeit, 43–79. Tübingen: Narr. English translation (2023). Discourse traditions: on their status in language theory and on their dynamics. In E. Winter-Froemel & Á. Octavio de Toledo y Huerta (Eds.), Manual of Discourse Traditions in Romance, 783–820. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koch, P. & Oesterreicher, W. (2011). Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania: Französisch — Italienisch — Spanisch (2nd edn.). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Language of immediacy — language of distance. Orality and Literacy from the perspective of language theory and linguistic history. In C. Lange, B. Weber & G. Wolf (Eds.), Communicative Spaces. Variation, Contact, and Change. Papers in Honour of Ursula Schaefer, 441–473. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang.Google Scholar
Kühn, P. (1995). Mehrfachadressierung. Untersuchungen zur adressatenspezifischen Polyvalenz sprachlichen Handelns. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2 1, 458–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (1993). Reference-Point Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 1, 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, R. & Kosse, M. (2020). The Social Domain of Understanding: Ethnographically-Informed Frame Semantics of Dog Whistles. Paper presented at HDLS 14, November 2020. DOI logo / [URL] (last accessed 19.05.2024).
Nølke, H. (2008). La polyphonie linguistique avec un regard sur l’approche scandinave. In J. Durand, B. Habert & B. Laks (Eds.), Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française — CMLF’08, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinkal, M. (1991). Vagheit und Ambiguität. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik/Semantics: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, 250–269. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Porzel, R. & Gurevych, I. (2002). Towards context-adaptive utterance interpretation. Proceedings of the Third SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, 154–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Posth, C. & Winter-Froemel, E. (2023). Interdiscursivity in French theatre: crossing linguistic and literary perspectives. In E. Winter-Froemel & Á. Octavio de Toledo y Huerta (Eds.), Manual of Discourse Traditions in Romance, 751–766. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rabatel, A. (2008). Homo narrans. Pour une analyse énonciative et interactionnelle du récit. Vol. 11: Les points de vue et la logique de la narration. Vol. 21: Dialogisme et polyphonie dans le récit. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.Google Scholar
Schole, G. (2021). Actualized Ambiguity at the Semantics / Pragmatics Interface. A Comparative Analysis of Spatial Reference in Spanish and German Dialogues. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sennet, A. (2023). Ambiguity. In E. N. Zalta, & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [URL] (last accessed 16.11.2023).
Sorlin, S. (2021). I will never concede: Donald Trump’s discourse of denial on Twitter (Nov. 4th 2020 — Jan. 8th 2021). Anglophonia. French Journal of English Linguistics, 31 1, 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trangerud, H. A. (2021). The American Cyrus: How an Ancient King Became a Political Tool for Voter Mobilization. Religions, 12 (5). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2012). On the persistence of ambiguous linguistic contexts over time: Implications for corpus research on micro-changes. In J. Mukherjee & M. Huber (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and Variation in English. Theory and Description, 231–246. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Truan, N. (2021). The Politics of Person Reference. Third-person forms in English, German, and French. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuggy, D. (1993). Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (3), 273–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, K. (2019). Indefiniteness and Specificity. In J. Gundel & B. Abbott (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Reference (online edn., Oxford Academic, 14 Mar. 2019), DOI logo, accessed 11 Nov. 2023.Google Scholar
Wieczorek, A. E. (2013). Clusivity. A New Approach to Association and Dissociation in Political Discourse. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Winter-Froemel, E. (2013). Ambiguität im Sprachgebrauch und im Sprachwandel: Parameter der Analyse diskurs- und systembezogener Fakten. Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur, 123 (2), 130–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019a). Ambigüité et marges de l’interprétation en synchronie et en diachronie lexicales: entre innovation et mésinterprétation. In G. Achard-Bayle, M. Krylyschin, G. Kleiber & M. Guérin (Eds.), Les sciences du langage et la question de l’interprétation (aujourd’hui). Actes du colloque 2017 de l’Association des Sciences du Langage, 197–232. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.Google Scholar
(2019b). Introducing pragmatic ambiguity. On the diversity and ambivalence of ambiguity in discourse. In M. Bauer, F. Berndt & S. Meixner (Eds.), Ambivalenz in Sprache, Literatur und Kunst, 65–89. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
(2021). Reinvestigating ambiguity and frequency in reanalysis: A two-step methodology for corpus-linguistic analyses based on bridging use exposure. Journal of Historical Syntax, 5 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar