MANIFESTO LH U M A IN
INTRODUCTION
While questions of naming have always been fundamental in linguistics, naming a new Research Unit (RU) dedicated to the Language Sciences with an interdisciplinary commitment is equally crucial.
LHUMAIN stands for Human beings Human kind in French. Thus, we aim to place humanity at the center of our research subjects the Human at the heart of our research subjects, our fields of study, and our objectives. We are engaged in a dynamic of practical focus research, committed to human activities to better understand and enlighten—or even accompany or challenge—the transformations of our societies.
Beyond the specific meanings carried by each element of the acronym Language(s), HUmanities, Media-tions, Learning, Interactions, Digital (which forms LHUMAIN in French), the whole exceeds the sum of its parts, in line with the principles of Complexity and Chaos Theories. Each label embedded in the acronym reflects its own conceptual framework; however, for the researchers working within our RU, the question of the Essence of Langugage plays a central role, shaping both our intellectual reasoning and our epistemological foundation.
LANGUAGE(S)
The entry "Language(s)" encompasses two broad meanings, depending on whether it is used in the singular or plural form. Language in the singular is considered the universal faculty shared by all human beings (Saussure, 1916), serving as a substrate that enables the acquisition and use of specific linguistic practices as well as verbal or non-verbal communication (Benveniste, 1966). Its dual articulation as a structural organization(Martinet, 1960) makes it a unique feature of the human species, based on current knowledge. The first articulation refers to the smallest semantic units (morphemes or monemes), while the second relates to the smallest linguistic units without inherent meaning, the phonemes. In all the world's natural languages, phonemes combine to form meaningful units, which then create linguistic signs, statements, and discourses. To make meaning is thus first to make a sign: in this perspective, the signifier becomes the practical means to access reality (Lafont, 1978), transcending classical definitions from glossematic (Hjelmslev, 1968) or logical-pragmatic (Strawson, 1977) traditions. This generalized embedding operates through realities mediated linguistically, which, in turn, categorize the reality shaped and layered sedimented by human activities and practices.
Language thus directly contributes to the foundations and structuring of cognition, including its socially distributed dimension. This understanding sheds light on linguistic relativity, wherein languages and cultures frame their apprehension of the world (Sapir, 1921; Whorf, 1954…).
In the plural, languages refers to broader connotations that extend beyond the concept as defined in the Language Sciences. Phrases like "body language" or "musical language" in artistic expressions, as well as "computer languages" and their coding systems, also constitute conceptual objects that open dialogue with other academic disciplines. Such reflections encourage interdisciplinary work and exploration of non-linguistic codes that, despite their differences, enable human beings to communicate and interact socially.
Language Sciences also prefer to refer to "language practices in mathematics" rather than "mathematical language or languages" to reflect the socially situated discourses of speakers. Analyses can only occur within a given context involving interlocutors.
A final consideration in the use of the term "language" arises in teaching-learning processes and, more generally, in appropriation. Expressions like "language acquisition" or "language development" are common, even in academic contexts, but are often inaccurate, possibly due to lexical ambiguity in English: "language acquisition," where "language" may refer to Language (in the singular, see above) or a specific language like Spanish, French, etc. Most of the time, when discussing "language acquisition," the real subject is language appropriation, i.e., understanding how a human being learns to speak a first or another language. Similarly, we speak of Language Didactics whereas the anglophone world refers to Language Pedagogy. We know “didactics” is perceived as moral overseas but in Europe, there is a tradition of researches about Language Pedagogy well-kown through “Language Didactics” which is a meta-level of reflexion regarding Language practices in the classrooms. Genuine "language acquisition" would focus on the emergence of Language as a faculty in the peculiar animal known as the Human. This reflection would then involve philosophers and paleoanthropologists, for example.
This conceptualization of Language underpins Section 7 of the CNU (National Council of Universities) in France dedicated to Language Sciences, which seeks to describe and explain the functioning of human language in all its dimensions, without exclusivity. Language Sciences encompass the description of languages, their acquisition, evolution, social roles, pathologies, and the communication media they employ (see the concept of "digital," for example). The linguistic dimension is therefore only one aspect and is integrated into the broader field of Language Sciences.
HUMANITIES
To speak of the humanities is, first and foremost, a matter for Moderns—if indeed we have ever truly been so, to paraphrase Latour (1991). The movement finds its origins in the restoration of a classical tradition where discourse holds a preeminent role: the umanista of the Quattrocento teaches grammar and rhetoric. Rather than being confined to disciplines, this movement—later termed "humanism" in the 19th century—asserts itself as a Western endeavor. The Renaissance represents a moral, intellectual, religious, aesthetic, and even physical achievement. This model of human ideal, enriched by the works of Greco-Roman antiquity and the Arab literary tradition, persisted as a foundation. From the 19th century onward, the Humanities centered largely on Latin and poetics, fostering a shared cultural framework where a teacher might instruct mythology, history, rhetoric, and geography simultaneously. These subjects, while criticized as early as the 18th century, remained central until education reforms in the early 20th century.
In secondary education, the study of the practice and and significance of speech, varied approaches to interpreting the world and societies, examining human relationships, and questioning subjectivity persist. Students are invited to explore the dynamics between tradition and change, as well as the nature of experience. Through the transmission of knowledge—including its critical dimension—the relationship to texts and languages is integral to these classical humanities, which also embrace an ethical purpose.
In higher education, the Humanities have traditionally been linked to the revitalization of classical disciplines (literature and philosophy, akin to the humanities in the English-speaking world), often struggling for contemporary recognition. They now position themselves in relation to, complementing, or even fostering interplay with the so-called "exact sciences" or engineering sciences.
Given successive transformations in conceptual frameworks, objects of study, methods of analysis, and theoretical intersections, the contemporary notion of Humanities extends broadly to include the Human and Social Sciences (HSS) or, more expansively, Literature, Languages, Arts, and Human and Social Sciences (LLASHS). This contemporary definition contrasts with the traditionally narrower scope. Before their association with the digital turn, other forms of Humanities had marked their specificity: technical (Simondon, 1958/2012) or scientific (Latour, 2010). More recently, Ecological Humanities (Rose & Robin, 2019) emerged as an interdisciplinary field dedicated to studying connections between human and their environments, including non-human agents
Aligned with these developments, the Digital Humanities reflect diverse approaches and conceptions, united by characteristics of transdisciplinarity, methodological integration of digital technologies with LLASHS (rather than treating technology as an object), and a political dimension emphasizing open data and scientific production sharing. Beyond the digitization of knowledge (or digital education), they contribute to a "Digital Humanism" as advocated by Doueihi (2011). The urgency of a contemporary humanist discourse lies precisely in reviving a "culture of interpretation" (Citton, 2010) to counter the dangers of a market-driven, utilitarian knowledge economy.
In a transdisciplinary perspective, Edgar Morin's humanology aims to transcend disciplinary divides that could hinder a holistic vision of a "science of humanity," enabling its further development.
In any case, LLASHS are called upon to examine their epistemological relationship with technology in the digital era. Whether addressing language, emotional and intersubjective dynamics, knowledge production and transmission, care practices, or artistic and cultural activities, few socially and culturally situated activities— whether artistic, cultural, or professional —escape the influence of technological interfaces and mediations. These pervasive interactions with machines and tools have become objects of investigation, modeling, analysis, and theorization. Even so-called virtual spaces (which are as real as any other) have extended the scope of the human condition.
Paradoxically, this technological omnipresence heightens the urgency of reconnecting with the living, the organic, and the sensory as the very essence of our prosthetic extensions and the invention of machines. Artificial intelligence, for example, is ultimately a product of our natural state, even as it retroactively transforms certain sociocognitive behaviors. Researchers in our RU place this crucial epistemic reflexivity at the core of their approaches.
MEDIA-TIONS
Defining media and understanding their functions in contemporary societies represent a major challenge for the human and social sciences. Linguist researchers, particularly within the fields of discourse analysis and conversation analysis, have engaged with the pervasive and complex nature of these vehicles of shared thought and other endoxa. The perspective developed at LHUMAIN emphasizes the dual necessity of avoiding both the reification of the concept of media (as in commonplace expressions like “it’s the media…”) and their reduction to neutral and transparent carriers of sociocultural data and practices.
The first assumption would consider media as a generic, unified entity that serves as both the product and the doxical repository of ideological production. Conversely, an objectivist approach—whose naïveté does not preclude compatibility with the former—treats media as massive data in themselves, favoring a quantitative and probabilistic methodology. This approach generates results that are “filtered” and “neutralized” in the chemical sense, forming a new object of analysis.
Faced with these methodological presumptions, an alternative epistemological stance is possible through a discursive anthropology of media. This approach reevaluates the linguistic dimension of media productions, for example, around the following transversal themes:
- Opacity and Transparency: How is meaning generated and circulated—not only in media (a notion of media as a container, open to debate), through media (as relatively transparent vehicles or vectors), or by media (causally mediating the relevant discursive events), but also within media themselves? This last perspective considers their structural, organic, and techno-genetic properties (Hayles, 2012).
- Discursive Memory: The circulation of discursive events and other discourses within media.
- Conditioning of Social Expectations: Rethinking media formats and genres in light of social and ethical norms and questioning media phrasings.
However, analyzing production and reception processes solely through the lens of discourse can be problematic and sometimes frustrating. The mechanisms of information diffusion and propagation are best analyzed within their sequential ecology—contexts that situate and give them meaning. This involves interactional semantics, course-of-action analysis, and especially literacy resources mobilized in these processes. Thus, LHUMAIN researchers adopt praxis-oriented approaches supported by ethnographic documentation and observation to elucidate the discursive functions of media.
Understanding mediation as a complex network of symbolic interstitial spaces offers a compelling method for interrogating media devices in contemporary societies (Gallez & Renault, 2018; Rebillard, 2016). Whether digital, written, or oral, mediation operates through ordinary intersubjective linguistic processes. At LHUMAIN, mediation is viewed as the outcome of social interaction, shaped by social factors and interpretative schemes (Véron, 1987; Paveau, 2006). Mediation, from this perspective, carries a discursive escort function by adding a proxemic dimension -spatial and relational) to social interaction.
At LHUMAIN, researches focus on two specific fields : health and culture. Roy & Hardy (2012) and Durocher & Bergeron (2012) examine mediation discourse as a facilitator for understanding the highly specialized lexical field of medical discourse. Quéré (2007) explores tools and methods used by social scientists, particularly their language and discourse, as mediatory devices to interpret health phenomena, health policies, and medical practices.
In the cultural field, mediation is investigated in the creation of engaging cultural narratives that foster public involvement (Vignier, 2017; Bourgeon-Renault & Dacosta, 2012). Mediation also applies to conflict prevention or resolution, as well as to fostering or renewing connections, particularly in language teaching and learning. Activities such as translation, interpreting, and summarizing provide opportunities for reformulations. These linguistic mediation activities are crucial for the ordinary linguistic functioning of our societies (Cavalli & Coste, 2019).
LEARNING
Learning covers multiple aspects within our scientific inquiry.
First and foremost, we focus on learning from the learners' perspective, as starting with the human element is fundamental to understanding its processes. The subject and the object cannot be separated (Morin, 1999).
These learning processes lie at the interface between acquisition (Vygotsky, 1934) and appropriation (Véronique, 1994). The objective is to juxtapose informal contexts (often referred to by psycholinguistic researchers as familial) with formal educational settings. However, in our Research Unit, choosing the term learning in the plural highlights the interconnectedness of these two contexts, which are too often treated separately by researchers from different fields (didactics for formal learning and acquisition studies for informal settings). Ultimately, we are interested in the appropriation processes, regardless of the contexts in which they occur.
The complexity of the processes involved in learning invites us to conceptualize an interdisciplinary dimension to pose and address our questions. Learning a language involves cognitive, socio-affective, didactic, and pedagogical dimensions.. It is therefore essential to study the development of speech in children or adults, whether in their first language or additional languages, in its diversity and within an ecological context. This involves prioritizing qualitative and interactional analyses across formal (school), informal (family), and non-formal (associative) settings. Computational and mathematical tools are also available to understand the non-linear dynamics of language appropriation. These often contrasting methodological approaches—qualitative and quantitative—should ideally be interconnected. For instance, learning dynamics frequently involve multiple languages over the course of speakers’ lives, demonstrating transfers (Cummins, 1991) between languages at phonological, lexical, morphological, and sociocultural levels in contexts of L1, L2, L3, and beyond.
Secondly, learning is considered from the perspective of those who co-construct (Bronckart, 2009) knowledge and understanding, whether in formal settings (teachers) or informal ones (peers), through various media (institutional or non-institutional teaching-learning situations, digital platforms, media, etc.). Foreign language didactics have evolved throughout the 20th century, prompting us today to critically examine our relationships with knowledge and its modes of transmission. For example, it is now recognized that oral competencies are no less important than written ones. This imbalance stems, in part, from a historical legacy of social representations (Jodelet, 2003) about French (Cerquilini, 2003), perpetuating an asymmetry between the oral and the written, even in their teaching, without adequately interrogating the relationship between these two poles (Chiss, 2018).
Thirdly, in some of our studies, learning is approached with a focus on so-called vulnerable populations (migrants, prisoners), based on the concept of vulnerability as intrinsic and/or relational. Vulnerability arises from a lack of access to resources or from social, economic, cultural, or linguistic inequalities. It is understood as a state that makes individuals more susceptible to harm or difficulties, particularly in educational contexts where skills and resources (including digital) are crucial for social and professional participation (Armstrong, 2017). Moreover, learning is enriched by crucial human and technologized experiences that must be studied, ensuring that learners' interests always remain central to pedagogical choices.
More broadly, we aim to develop a comprehensive reflection on the nature of learning, striving to grasp its complexity and construct a methodical approach (Morin, 2008, for a synthesis) that rises to this challenge. Accordingly, our work in language acquisition and didactics seeks to encompass the wide breadth of this field of study to address concrete issues arising from formal, informal, and non-formal educational settings.
INTERACTIONS
Discourse Analysis (Maingueneau, 1980, 1991, 2014; Charaudeau & Maingueneau, 2002, among others), Conversation Analysis, and Interactional Linguistics emerged during periods of intellectual effervescence, expansion, and eventual re-examination of traditional fields such as linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and social psychology (in Francophone literature, see Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1990; Vion, 1993, among others). These three domains are inherently diverse and interdisciplinary. From their inception, they have engaged in dialogue with numerous scientific fields and addressed data from a wide variety of human activities. As such, they have become autonomous domains within scientific environments shaped by their histories and their intellectual, linguistic, and geographical affiliations.
Some of the research conducted by members of LHUMAIN on interaction focuses particularly on Conversation Analysis (CA; Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974) and Interactional Linguistics (IL; Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 2001; Fox et al., 2013). This dual orientation draws from the sociological approaches of Garfinkel and Goffman, Linguistic Anthropology (Duranti, 1977), the Ethnography of Communication (Hymes & Gumperz, 1972), and dialectology (de Fornel & Léon, 2000). For a concise overview of this analytical and theoretical framework, one might first recall the organizational structures of turn-taking and sequences identified by the founders of CA, as well as more recent developments, such as the deepened understanding of the relationship between turns and actions. Finally, the current and future research avenues that seem most promising are worth noting.
Talk-in-Interaction, the exchange of speech between two or more individuals, is considered the fundamental form of all social life. The elements constituting the "immediate organizational niche" (Schegloff, 1996: 2) include:
- Turn-Constructional Units (TCUs), which may, singly or in combination, recursively constitute a turn at talk, along with simple yet powerful principles (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974) governing turn-taking (e.g., selection, self-selection, and continuation).
- Sequential Configurations, where strong and localized relationships unfold (such as the adjacency pair: Invitation/Acceptance), as well as broader structures like Inserted Sequences (Request for Help/Help), across turns, within a set of rights and obligations that must be fulfilled, even later in the interaction, under the principle of Conditional Relevance (Sacks & Schegloff, 1979).
This work on the "primordial site of sociality" (Schegloff, 1995) is essentially founded on the links between elements of a turn at talk and the actions these turns produce. In this vein, Heritage (2011: 212) defines a "practice" as any characteristic of turn design within a sequence that (i) is distinctive, (ii) has specific placements within a turn or sequence, and (iii) significantly influences the nature or meaning of the action implemented by the turn. Robinson (2007: 68) further elaborates by distinguishing between a practice and an action practice, with the former serving to construct the latter. He describes configurations of practices orchestrated by participants (e.g., lexical choices, intonation, sequential positioning): “Participants are interested in the product of this orchestration in terms of action, while analysts are additionally interested in the practices used to construct these actions.”
Current research on interaction in diverse activities and ecologies contributes to understanding:
- Action Practices, to expand research objects or revisit previously studied objects from an interdisciplinary perspective.
- Speech as an Ongoing Product, where linguistic and social semiotic events generate resources for accomplishing goals or tasks within these events (Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 2001: 3).
- in a present semiotic landscape that not only offers various resources to participants but is also elaborated and transformed through the prospective and retrospective orientation of ongoing interaction (Goodwin, 2013).
- Analytical Units of Interaction (TCUs and sequences), contributing to ongoing debates about quantification (Schegloff, 1993; Robinson, 2007; Stivers, 2015), the digitalization of interaction and Intelligent Agents, and decision-making support in Artificial Intelligence.
- Dimensionalities of Experience (from 2D to 3D, visual and auditory) in television production (Broth, 2008) and immersive environments (McIlvenny, 2020).
DIGITAL
Language Sciences, particularly through discourse analysis, the Text-Discourse-Object approach, and interactional linguistics, contribute to constructing a digital episteme. This resolutely interdisciplinary stance underscores the need to update forms of knowledge and representation, to grasp discursive trajectories in order to better understand the processes of production and reception, and ultimately to foster the creation and renewal of knowledge.
The term digital encompasses a dual reference: first, to the use of computer technology for storing, processing, and communicating information in the form of digital data, and second, to its association with information and communication technologies, which include computers, smartphones, tablets, applications, software, communication networks, online services, and more.
The research conducted within the LHUMAIN Research Unit (RU) cannot limit itself to considering the digital as a new anthropo-techno(de)centered agora, whose mechanisms are largely explained by quantitative and automated language analysis. Instead, these studies emphasize avoiding the concretization of the digital concept (by systematically relying on tools and encoding) and recognizing the importance, as researchers, of investigating the digital as a field of study requiring abstraction. LHUMAIN's research projects are united by a common focus on the digital as an entity that "creates existence" both online and offline, with or without digital devices, in face-to-face interactions or otherwise, in physical presence or remotely. The analysis of these techno-linguistic phenomena thus renews the close relationship between humans and technè. The data examined are primarily audiovisual and/or produced in digital contexts such as forums, chatbots, and video conferencing. For this reason, LHUMAIN favors an interactional linguistics approach applied to a digital context, understood as a component of an environment shaped by its technologically mediated specificity.
A critical and detached perspective is insufficient; the object of analysis demands engaged research that, far from dismissing biases or the observer's paradox, incorporates these factors as phenomena of change and intersubjective adjustment.
Thus, LHUMAIN aligns with currents in the human and social sciences that interrogate and support the examination of the varied and complex relationships humans establish with non-humans. This perspective is explored through studies in the fields of digital humanities, digital cultures, and digital literacy.
The effort to problematize the various notions comprising the LHUMAIN acronym, considered in terms of their interrelations, seeks to contribute to the discussion of the pressing social issues of our time.
Bibliography
Armstrong, F. (2017). An Extrinsic Dispositional Account of Vulnerability. Les ateliers de l’éthique/The Ethics Forum, 12 (2‑3), 180‑204.
Benveniste, E. (1966).Problèmes de linguistique générale, Gallimard.
Berra, A. (2012). « Faire des humanités numériques », dans Read/write Book 2, OpenEdition Press, pp. 17-33.
Bronckart, J-P. (2009). Apprentissage et développement dans la perspective de l’interactionnisme socio-discursif”, eJRIEPS [Online], 18 | 2009, Online since 01 July 2009, connection on 30 November 2022. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/ejrieps/5476; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/ejrieps.5476
Bronckart, J-P. (1997). Activité langagière, textes et discours. Pour un interactionnisme socio-discursif, Delachaux & Niestlé.
Broth, M. (2008). The studio interaction as a contextual resource for TV-production. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(5), 904-926.
Cardon, D. (2019). Culture numérique. Presses de Sciences Po. https://doi.org/10.3917/scpo.cardo.2019.01
Cavalli, M. & Coste, D. (2019). Décrire l’activité langagière de médiation: le cas de l’enseignement bilingue. Cahiers de l’ASDIFLE, n° 30, 67-93.
Cerquiglini, B. (2003). Le français, religion d'Etat ?, Le Monde, Publié le 25 novembre 2003 à 12h14 https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/2003/11/25/le-francais-religion-d-etat-par-bernard-cerquiglini_343309_1819218.html
Charaudeau P., & Maingueneau, D. (dir.) (2002). Dictionnaire d’analyse du discours. Seuil.
Citton, Y. (2010). L'Avenir des Humanités. Économie de la connaissance ou culture de l'interprétation ?, Éditions de la Découverte.
Citton, Y. Doudet, E. (dir.) (2019). Écologies de l’attention et archéologie des media. Grenoble : UGA Éditions.
Conseil Supérieur des programmes (2018). Humanités, littérature et philosophie, enseignement de spécialité, classe de première, voie générale.
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2001). Introducing interactional linguistics. Studies in interactional linguistics, 122, 1-22.
Chiss, J-L. (2018). La culture du langage et les idéologies linguistiques, Limoges : Lambert Lucas.
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70-89).
Dacos M., & Mounier, P. (2015). Humanités numériques : État des lieux et positionnement de la recherche française dans le contexte international. [Rapport de recherche] Institut français.
Doueihi, M. (2011). Pour un humanisme numérique. Seuil.
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic Anthropology, Cambridge University Press.
Fornel, M. de & Léon, J. (2000). L'analyse de conversation, de l'ethnométhodologie à la linguistique interactionnelle. Histoire épistémologie langage, 22(1), 131-155.
Fox, B. A., Thompson, S. A., Ford, C. E., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2013). 36 Conversation Analysis and Linguistics. The handbook of conversation analysis, 726.
Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of pragmatics, 46(1), 8-23.
Hayles, N. K. (2012). How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis, The University of Chicago Press.
Henrickson, L. (2019). « Humanities Computing, Digital Humanities, and Computational Humanities: What’s In a Name ? », en ligne : https://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/humanities-computing-digital-humanities-and-computational-humanities-whats-in-a-name/
Hjelmslev, L. (1968), Prolégomènes à une théorie du langage suivi de La Structure fondamentale du langage, Éditions de minuit, coll. « Arguments ».
Heritage, J. (2011). Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. The morality of knowledge in conversation, 29, 159-183.
Hymes, D. & Gumperz, J. J. (1972), Directions in Sociolinguistics. The ethnography of Communication, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Jodelet, D. (2003). Les représentations sociales, PUF.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1990). 1994. Les interactions verbales, 3.
Lafont, R. (1978). Le travail et la langue, Flammarion.
Latour, B. (1991). Nous n'avons jamais été modernes. Essai d'anthropologie symétrique, La Découverte.
Latour, B. (2010). Cogitamus. Six lettres sur les humanités scientifiques, La Découverte, coll. « Sciences Humaines », 246 p.
Licoppe, C. (2014). Interactions médiées et action située: La pertinence renouvelée des approches praxéologiques issues de l'ethnométhodologie et l'analyse de conversation. Réseaux, 184-185, 317-345. https://doi.org/10.3917/res.184.031
Longhi, J. (2019). « Contours, perspectives et tensions des « humanités numériques », revue Sens Dessous, n°24.
Pannapacker, W. (2011). « Big Tent Digital Humanities » [archive], The Chronicle of Higher Education, 31 juillet 2011.
Mackay, W. (2022). Réimaginer nos interactions avec le monde numérique. Collège de France.
Maingueneau, D. (2014-2021). Discours et analyse du discours. A. Colin.
Maingueneau, D. (1991-1997). L’Analyse du discours : introduction aux lectures de l’archive. Hachette.
Maingueneau, D. (1976). Initiation aux méthodes de l’analyse du discours : problèmes et perspectives. Hachette université.
Martinet, A. (1960). Éléments de linguistique générale, Armand Colin.
Mayaffre D. (2002). Les corpus réflexifs : entre architextualité et hypertextualité. Corpus, 1, 51-69.
McIlvenny, P. (2020). The future of ‘video’in video-based qualitative research is not ‘dumb’flat pixels! Exploring volumetric performance capture and immersive performative replay. Qualitative Research, 20(6), 800-818.
Morin E. (2008). La méthode, volume I et volume II, Seuil.
Morin, E. (1999). La tête bien faite, Paris, Seuil, Collection « L’histoire immédiate ».
Paveau M.-A. (2017). L'analyse du discours numérique. Dictionnaire des formes et des pratiques, Hermann.
Proulx, S. (2017). L’injonction à participer au monde numérique. Communiquer, 20, 15-27.
Quéré, L. (1994). Sociologie et sémantique : le langage dans l'organisation sociale de l'expérience. Sociétés contemporaines, 18-19, 17-41.
Robinson, J. D. (2007). The role of numbers and statistics within conversation analysis. Communication methods and measures, 1(1), 65-75.
Rose, D. et Robin L. (2019). Vers des humanités écologiques, Traduit de lʼanglais par Marin Schaffner, Wildprojects.
Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 15-21.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1978). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. In Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 7-55). Academic Press.
Sapir, E. (1921). Language, New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Saussure De, F. (1916) [1962]. Cours de linguistique générale, Payot.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: one intersection of. Interaction and grammar, 13, 52-133.
Schegloff, E. A. (1995). Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action. Research on language and social interaction, 28(3), 185-211.
Schegloff, E. A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on language and social interaction, 26(1), 99-128.
Simondon, G. (1958/2012). Du mode d’existence des objets techniques, Aubier (22e édition).
Stivers, T. (2015). Coding social interaction: A heretical approach in conversation analysis?. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(1), 1-19.
Strawson, P.F. (1977). Études de logique et le linguistique, traduction par Judith Milner de Logico-linguistic papers, Seuil, coll. L'Ordre philosophique.
Suchman, L. (1990). Plans d’action : Problèmes de représentation de la pratique en sciences cognitives. In Pharo, P., & Quéré, L. (Eds.), Les formes de l’action : Sémantique et sociologie. Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales. doi :10.4000/books.editionsehess.25362
Terras, M. (2011). « Peering inside the Big Tent : Digital Humanities and the Crisis of Inclusion », Melissa Terras’ Blog, 26 juillet 2011, http://melissaterras.blogspot.fr/2011/07/peering-inside-big-tent-digital.html.
Véronique, D. (1984). Contextes socio-cuIturels et appropriation des langues secondes : l'apprentissage en milieu social et la créolisation, Bulletin VALS-ASLA 59, 64-84
Vion, R. (1993). Hétérogénéité énonciative et espace interactif. In Decrosse, Anne. L’esprit de société: vers une anthropologie sociale du sens. Margada.
Vygotski, L., (1934). Pensée et langage, (1997 traduction de Françoise Sève, avant-propos de Lucien Sève), La Dispute.
Whorf, B. L. (1954). Language, Thought, and Reality, M.I.T. Press.