1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Impersonals and other Agent Defocusing Constructions in French

Impersonals and other Agent Defocusing Constructions in French

image of Impersonals and other Agent Defocusing Constructions in French
GBP
Buy:£83.00 + Taxes

This book investigates French impersonals as a functional category. Any structure whose agent is defocused and whose predicate describes a situation stable enough to be generally available should be considered impersonal. In addition to il impersonals, the category also includes demonstrative (ce/ça), middle (se), and indefinite (on) structures. These different forms belong to the same functional category because they systematically code general and predictable events that cannot be imputed to a specific cause. Because generality and predictability are gradual notions, impersonals can only be identified within the context of specific constructional islands which therefore constitute the organizing principle of the French impersonal category.

Conducted in Cognitive Grammar, the analysis follows the functional tradition in expanding the scope of French impersonals beyond il constructions, but also proposes a way of precisely delineating the category. This book will be of interest to anyone interested in impersonal constructions and French linguistics.

References

  1. Achard, Michel
    (1998) Representation of cognitive structures: Syntax and semantics of French complements. Cognitive Linguistics Research11. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110805956
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110805956 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2000) The distribution of French raising constructions. BLS, 26, 1–12. doi: 10.3765/bls.v26i1.1157
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v26i1.1157 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2001) French ça and the dynamics of reference. In Ruth Brend , Alan Melby , & Arle Lommel (Eds.), LACUS Forum 27: Speaking and understanding (pp. 49–62). Fullerton, CA: LACUS.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. (2002) The meaning and distribution of French mood inflections. In Frank Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference (pp. 197–249). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. (2007) Usage-based semantics: Body parts with three French breaking verbs. In Marja Nenonen & Sinikka Niemi (Eds.), Collocations and Idioms1 (pp. 1–13). Joensuu: Joensuu University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. (2009) The distribution of French intransitive predicates. Linguistics, 47(3), 513–558. doi: 10.1515/LING.2009.018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2009.018 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2010) Fields and settings: French il and ça impersonals in copular complement constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(3), 441–498. doi: 10.1515/COGL.2010.016
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2010.016 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2012) The impersonals value of demonstrative and middle constructions. In Myriam Bouveret & Dominique Legallois (Eds.), French constructions (pp. 177–200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.13.11ach
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.13.11ach [Google Scholar]
  9. . (in press). Abstract locational subjects: Field and settings in French and English. In Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Tuomas Huumo (Eds.) Subjects in constructions: Canonical and non canonical. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Ackema, Paul , & Schoorlemmer, Maaike
    (1994) The middle construction and the syntax-semantics interface. Lingua, 93, 59–90. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(94)90353‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(94)90353-0 [Google Scholar]
  11. (1995) Middles and nonmovement. Linguistic Inquiry, 26(2), 173–197.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Afonso, Susana
    (2008) Existentials as impersonalizing devices: The case of European Portuguese. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106(2), 180–215. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2008.00192.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2008.00192.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Bally, Charles
    (1932) Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Bern: Francke.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Barlow, Michael , & Kemmer, Suzanne
    (2000) Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Benveniste, Emile
    (1966) Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Blevins, James
    (2003) Passives and impersonals. Journal of Linguistics, 39, 473–520. doi: 10.1017/S0022226703002081
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226703002081 [Google Scholar]
  17. Blinkenberg, Andreas
    (1960) Le problème de la transitivité en français moderne. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Bolinger, Dwight
    (1973) Ambient it is meaningful too. Journal of Linguistics, 9, 261–270. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700003789
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700003789 [Google Scholar]
  19. (1977) Meaning and form. London & New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Bruneau, Charles , & Heulluy, Marcel
    (1937) Grammaire pratique de la langue française à l’usage des honnêtes gens. Paris: Delagrave.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Brunot, Ferdinand
    (1936) La pensée et la langue. Paris: Masson.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Bybee, Joan
    (2001) Phonology and language use. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511612886
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612886 [Google Scholar]
  23. Cabredo Hofheer, Patricia
    (2003) Arbitrary readings of third person plural pronominals. In Mattias Weisgerber (Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference Sinn und Beudetung 7. FB Sprachwissenschaft. Germany: Universität Konstanz.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (2008) Les pronoms impersonnels humains – syntaxe et interprétation. Modèles Linguistiques, XXIX-1(57), 35–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Cadiot, Pierre
    (1988) De quoi ça parle? A propos de la référence de ça pronom-sujet. Le français Moderne, 65, 174–192.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Carlier, Anne
    (1996) ‘Les Gosses ça se lève tôt le matin’: L’interprétation générique du syntagme nominal disloqué au moyen de ce ou ça . Journal of French Language Studies, 6, 133–162. doi: 10.1017/S0959269500003045
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269500003045 [Google Scholar]
  27. Carnie, Andrew , & Harley, Heidi
    (2005) Existential impersonals. Studia Linguistica, 59(1), 45–65. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.2005.00119.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2005.00119.x [Google Scholar]
  28. Chomsky, Noam
    (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. (1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Corblin, Francis
    (1995) Les formes de reprise dans le discours: Anaphores et chaînes de références. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Condoravdi, Cleo
    (1989) The middle: Where semantics and morphology meet. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 11, 18–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Coveney, Aidan
    (2003) “Anything you can do, tu can do better”: Tu and vous as substitutes for indefinite on in French. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(2), 164–191. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9481.00218
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00218 [Google Scholar]
  33. Creissels, Denis
    (2008a) Impersonal and related constructions: A typological approach. Manuscript, University of Lyon. Downloaded from: www.deniscreissels.fr/public/Creissels-impers.constr.pdf.
  34. (2008b) Impersonal pronouns and coreference: The case of French on . Manuscript, University of Lyon. Downloaded from: www.deniscreissels.fr/public/Creissels-ON.pdf.
  35. Croft, William
    (2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Cummins, Sarah
    (2000) The unaccusative hypothesis and the impersonal construction in French. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 45(3/4), 227–251.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Diessel, Holger
    (1999) Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization. Typological Studies in Language, 42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.42
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.42 [Google Scholar]
  38. Divjak, Dagmar , & Janda, Laura
    (2008) Ways of attenuating agency in Russian. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106(2), 138–179. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2008.00207.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2008.00207.x [Google Scholar]
  39. Dowty, David
    (2000) The semantic asymmetry of “argument alternations” (and why it matters). Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik. Available at: www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~dowty.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Fauconnier, Gilles
    (1985) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, & London: Bradford.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Fauconnier, Gilles , & Turner, Mark
    (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Fillmore, Charles
    (1982) Frame semantics. InThe linguistics society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Fillmore, Charles , Kay, Paul , & O’Connor, Mary Catherine
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64(3), 501–538. doi: 10.2307/414531
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  44. François, Alexis
    (1933) Histoire de la langue française (tome VI, partie IIB: La langue post-classique). Paris: Colin.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Gadet, Françoise
    (1992) Le français populaire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Galichet, Georges
    (1968) Grammaire structurale du français moderne. Paris & Limoges: Editions Charles-Lavauzelle.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Gavioli, Laura
    (2005) Exploring corpora for ESP learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.21
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.21 [Google Scholar]
  48. Gledhill, Christopher
    (2003) Fundamentals of French syntax. München LINCOM EUROPA.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Goldberg, Adele
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Gougenheim, Georges
    (1963) Système grammatical de la langue française. Paris: Editions d’Artrey.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Grammaire larousse du XXe siècle (1936) Paris: Librairie Larousse.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Grevisse, Maurice
    (1936) Le bon usage. Cours de grammaire française et de langage français. Gembloux: Duculot.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. (1969) Le bon usage (9ème édition). Gembloux: Duculot.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. (1986) Le bon usage (12ème édition). Paris, Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Gries, Stefan , & Divjak, Dagmar
    (2009) Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach towards cognitive semantic analysis. In Vyvyan Evans , & Stephanie Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 57–75). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.24.07gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.07gri [Google Scholar]
  57. Gries, Stefan , & Stefanowitsch, Anatol
    (Eds.) (2006) Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197709
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197709 [Google Scholar]
  58. Grimshaw, Jane
    (1980) Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Gross, Maurice
    (1968) Grammaire transformationnelle du français: Syntaxe du verbe. Paris: Larousse.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Guénette, Louise
    (1996) Le démonstratif en français. Paris: Honoré Champion.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Guéron, Jacqueline
    (1980) On the syntax and semantics of PP extraposition. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 637–678.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Heluasvo, Marja-Liisa , & Vilkuna, Maria
    (2008) Impersonal is personal: Finnish perspectives. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106(2), 216–245. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2008.00208.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2008.00208.x [Google Scholar]
  63. Hériau, Michel
    (1980) Le verbe impersonnel en français moderne. Lille: Atelier de reproductions de thèses, Université de Lille III.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Herschensohn, Julia
    (1982) The French impersonal as a base generated structure. Studies in Language, 6, 193–219. doi: 10.1075/sl.6.2.03her
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.6.2.03her [Google Scholar]
  65. (1996) Case suspension and binary complement structure in French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.132
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.132 [Google Scholar]
  66. Hilty, Gerold
    (1959)  Il impersonnel: Syntaxe historique et interprétation littéraire. Le Français Moderne, 27, 241–251.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Hopper, Paul , & Thompson, Sandra
    (1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56, 251–299. doi: 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  68. Johnson-Laird, Philip
    (1993) Foreword. In Cristina Cacciari , & Patrizia Tabossi (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. vii–x). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Jones, Michael
    (1996) Foundations of French syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620591
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620591 [Google Scholar]
  70. Karttunnen, Laurie
    (1971) Some observations on factivity. Papers in Linguistics, 4, 55–70. doi: 10.1080/08351817109370248
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351817109370248 [Google Scholar]
  71. Kayne, Richard
    (1979) Rightward NP movement in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 710–719.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Keenan, Edward , & Dryer, Matthew
    (2007) Passive in the world’s languages. In Timothy Shopen (Ed.), Clause structure, language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 1, (2nd Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Kemmer, Suzanne
    (1993) The middle voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.23
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.23 [Google Scholar]
  74. Kiparsky, Paul , & Kiparsky, Carol
    (1970) Fact. In Manfred Bierwisch , & Karl E. Heidolph (Eds.), Progress in linguistics (pp. 143–173). The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Kirsner, Robert
    (1979) The problem of presentative sentences in modern Dutch. North-Holland Linguistic Series 43. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Koenig, Jean-Pierre
    (1999)  On a tué le président! The nature of passives and ultra-indefinites. In Barbara Fox , Dan Jurafsky , & Laura Michaelis (Eds.), Cognition and function in language (pp. 256–272). Stanford: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Koenig, Jean-Pierre , & Mauner, Gail
    (1999) A-definites and the discourse status of implicit arguments. Journal of Semantics, 16(3), 207–236. doi: 10.1093/jos/16.3.207
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/16.3.207 [Google Scholar]
  78. Labelle, Marie
    (1992) Change of state and valency. Journal of Linguistics, 28, 375–414. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700015267
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700015267 [Google Scholar]
  79. Lakoff, George
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  80. Lakoff, George , & Johnson, Mark
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Lambrecht, Knud
    (1994) Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  82. Langacker, Ronald
    (1982) Space grammar, analyzability, and the English passive. Language, 58, 22–80. doi: 10.2307/413531
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413531 [Google Scholar]
  83. (1985) Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In John Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 109–150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.6.07lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.07lan [Google Scholar]
  84. (1987a) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. (1987b) Nouns and verbs. Language, 63, 53–94. doi: 10.2307/415384
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415384 [Google Scholar]
  86. (1988) A usage-based model. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 127–161). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.50.06lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.06lan [Google Scholar]
  87. (1990) Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5–38. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  88. (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. (1993) Reference point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1–38. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  90. (1995) Raising and transparency. Language, 71(1), 1–62. doi: 10.2307/415962
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415962 [Google Scholar]
  91. (1999) Virtual reality. Study in the Linguistic Sciences, 29(2), 77–103.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. (2002) The control cycle: Why grammar is a matter of life and death. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association, 2, 193–220.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. (2004) Aspects of the grammar of finite clauses. In Michel Achard , & Suzanne Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp. 535–577). Stanford: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. (2005) Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez , & M. Sandra Peña Cevel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 101–159). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. (2006) Dimensions of defocusing. In Masayoshi Shibatani , & Taro Kageyama (Eds.), Voice and grammatical relations: In honor of Masayoshi Shibatani (pp. 115–137). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.65.08lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.65.08lan [Google Scholar]
  97. (2007) Constructing the meanings of personal pronouns. In Günter Radden , Klaus-Michael Köpcke , Thomas Berg , & Peter Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 171–197). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.136.12lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.12lan [Google Scholar]
  98. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  99. (2009) Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110214369
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  100. Lauwers, Peter
    (2004) La description du français entre la tradition grammaticale et le modernité linguistique. Leuven, Paris, & Dudley, MA: Peeters.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Lazard, Gilbert
    (1998) Actancy. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110808100
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808100 [Google Scholar]
  102. Lazdina, Tereza Budina
    (1966) Teach yourself Latvian. London: The English Universities Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Le Bidois, Georges , & Le Bidois, Robert
    (1935) Syntaxe du français moderne, Vol. 1. New York: Strechert.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. (1938) Syntaxe du français moderne, Vol. 2. New York: Strechert.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Legendre, Géraldine
    (1989) Unaccusativity in French. Lingua, 79, 95–164. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(89)90067‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(89)90067-3 [Google Scholar]
  106. (1990) French impersonal constructions. NLLT, 8, 81–128.
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Lekakou, Marika
    (2003) Greek passives on the middle interpretation. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greek Linguistics . Downloaded from: https://www.academia.edu/884778/Greek_passives_on_the_middle_interpretation.
     [Google Scholar]
  108. (2004) Middles as disposition ascriptions. In Cécile Meier , & Mattias Weisgerber (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference “sub8 – Sinn und Beudetung” Arbeitpapier 117, (pp. 181–195). FB Sprachwissenschaft. Germany: Universität Konstanz.
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Lyons, Christopher
    (1995) Voice, aspect and arbitrary arguments. In John Charles Smith , & Martin Maiden (Eds.), Linguistic theory and the Romance languages (pp. 77–114). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.122.04lyo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.122.04lyo [Google Scholar]
  110. Malchukov, Andrej , & Siewierska, Anna
    (2011) Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.124
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.124 [Google Scholar]
  111. Malchukov, Andrej , & Ogawa, Akio
    (2011) Towards a typology of impersonal constructions. In Andrej Malchukov , & Anna Siewierska (Eds.), Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 19–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.124
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.124 [Google Scholar]
  112. Martin, Robert
    (1970) La transformation impersonnelle. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 34, 377–394.
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Martinon, Philippe
    (1927) Comment on parle en français. Paris: Larousse.
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Melis, Ludo
    (1990) La voie pronominale. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot. doi: 10.3917/dbu.melis.1990.01
     https://doi.org/10.3917/dbu.melis.1990.01 [Google Scholar]
  115. Mendikoetxea, Amaya
    (2008) Clitic impersonal constructions in Romance: Syntactic features and semantic interpretation. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106(2), 290–336. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2008.00210.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2008.00210.x [Google Scholar]
  116. Michaelis, Laura
    (2005) Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. In Jan-Ola Östman , & Mirjam Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 45–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.3.04mic
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.04mic [Google Scholar]
  117. (2004) Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 1–67. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2004.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.001 [Google Scholar]
  118. Moignet, Gérard
    (1974) Etudes de psycho-systématique française. Paris: Klincksieck.
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Olsson, Hugo
    (1986) La concurrence entre il, ce et cela (ça) comme sujet d’expressions impersonnelles en français contemporain. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Perlmutter, David
    (1978) Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. BLS, 4, 157–189. doi: 10.3765/bls.v4i0.2198
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v4i0.2198 [Google Scholar]
  121. (Ed.) (1983) Studies in relational grammar 1. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Perlmutter, David , & Rosen, Carol
    (Eds.) (1984) Studies in relational grammar 2. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Perlmutter, David , & Postal, Paul
    (1983) Some proposed laws of basic clause structure. In David Perlmutter (Ed.), Studies in relational grammar 1 (pp. 81–129). Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  124. (1984) Impersonal passives and some relational laws. In David Perlmutter , & Carol Rosen (Eds.), Studies in relational grammar 2 (pp. 126–171). Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Pollock, Jean-Yves
    (1978) Trace theory and French syntax. In Jay Keyser (Ed.), Recent transformational studies in European languages (pp. 65–112). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Postal, Paul
    (1982) Arc pair grammar descriptions. In Pauline Jacobson , & Geoffrey Pullum (Eds.), The nature of syntactic representation (pp. 341–425). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑7707‑5_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7707-5_9 [Google Scholar]
  127. (1984) French indirect object cliticization and SSC/BT. Linguistic Analysis, 14, 111–172.
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Pustejovsky, James
    (1989) Type coercion and selection. Paper presented at West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics , Vancouver.
     [Google Scholar]
  129. (1995) Linguistic constraints on type coercion. In Patrick Saint-Dizier , & Evelyn Viegas (Eds.), Computational lexical semantics (pp. 71–97). Cambridge, New York, & Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511527227.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527227.007 [Google Scholar]
  130. Radford, Andrew
    (2004) Minimalist syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511811319
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811319 [Google Scholar]
  131. Rice, Sally
    (1987) Towards a cognitive model of transitivity. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, University of California San Diego.
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Rowlett, Paul
    (2007) The syntax of French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511618642
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618642 [Google Scholar]
  133. Ruwet, Nicolas
    (1972) Théorie syntaxique et syntaxe du français. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
     [Google Scholar]
  134. (1989) Weather-verbs and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Carl Kirschner , & Janet De Cesaris (Eds.), Studies in Romance linguistics (pp. 313–345). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.60.20ruw
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.60.20ruw [Google Scholar]
  135. 1991 Syntax and human experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Sandfeld, Kristian
    (1929) Syntaxe du français contemporain. Paris: Champion.
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Sansó, Andrea
    (2005) Semantic maps in action, a discourse-based approach to passive and impersonal constructions. In Annalisa Baicchi , Cristiano Broccias , & Andrea Sansó (Eds.), Modelling thought and constructing meaning (pp. 89–106). Milan: Angeli.
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Sechehaye, Albert
    (1950) Essai sur la structure logique de la langue. Paris: Champion.
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Shibatani, Masayochi
    (1985) Passive and related constructions: A prototype analysis. Language, 61, 821–848. doi: 10.2307/414491
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414491 [Google Scholar]
  140. Siewierska, Anna
    (2008a) Ways of impersonalizing: Pronominal vs. verbal strategies. In Maria de los Angeles Gómez González , J. Lachlan MacKenzie , & Elsa M. González Alvarez (Eds.), Current trends in contrastive linguistics, functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 3–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sfsl.60.03sie
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.60.03sie [Google Scholar]
  141. (2008b) Introduction, impersonalization: An agent-based vs. a subject-based perspective. Transactions of Philological Society, 106(2), 115–137. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2008.00211.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2008.00211.x [Google Scholar]
  142. Sinclair, John
    (1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  143. (1996) The search for units of meaning. Textus, 9, 75–106.
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Sloń, Anna
    (2007) The ‘impersonal’ impersonal construction in Polish: A cognitive grammar analysis. In Dagmar Divjak , & Agata Kochańska (Eds.), Cognitive paths through the Slavic domain (pp. 257–287). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110198799.3.257
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198799.3.257 [Google Scholar]
  145. Smith, Michael
    (1985) An analysis of German dummy subject constructions in cognitive grammar. In Scott DeLancey , & Russell Tomlin (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference (pp. 412–425). Eugene: Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon.
     [Google Scholar]
  146. (2000) Cataphors, spaces, propositions: Cataphoric pronouns and their function. Proceedings from the Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 36(1), 483–500.
     [Google Scholar]
  147. (2004) Cataphoric pronouns as mental space designators. In Robert Kirsner , Ellen Contini-Morava , & Betsy Rodriguez-Bachiller (Eds.), Cognitive and communicative approaches to linguistic analysis (pp. 61–90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sfsl.51.04smi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.51.04smi [Google Scholar]
  148. (2006) The conceptual structure of German impersonal constructions. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 17(2), 79–138.
     [Google Scholar]
  149. Stéfanini, Jean
    (1962) La voix pronominale en ancien et en moyen français. Aix-en-Provence: Ophrys.
     [Google Scholar]
  150. Stefanowitsch, Anatol , & Gries, Stefan
    (2003) Collostructions: On the interaction between verbs and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  151. Tesnière, Lucien
    (1959) Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
     [Google Scholar]
  152. Tomasello, Michael
    (1999) The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  153. (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  154. Van Oosten, Jeanne
    (1977) Subjects and agenthood in English. Chicago Linguistic Society, 13, 451–471.
     [Google Scholar]
  155. Wagner, Robert Léon , & Pinchon, Jacqueline
    (1962) Grammaire du français classique et moderne. Paris: Hachette.
     [Google Scholar]
  156. Wartburg, von Walter , & Zumthor, Paul
    (1958) Précis de syntaxe du français contemporain. Bern: Francke.
     [Google Scholar]
  157. Wilmet, Marc
    (1997) Grammaire critique du français. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.
     [Google Scholar]
  158. Wehrli, Eric
    (1986) On some properties of the French clitic se . In Hagit Borer (Ed.), The syntax of pronominal clitics (pp. 263–283). San Francisco: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  159. Yoon, Soyeon
    (2012) Constructions, semantic compatibility, and coercion: An empirical usage-based approach. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Rice University.
     [Google Scholar]
  160. Zribi-Hertz, Anne
    (1982) La construction “se-moyen” du français et son statut dans le triangle moyen, passif réfléchi. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, VI(2), 345–401. doi: 10.1075/li.6.2.05zri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/li.6.2.05zri [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/books/9789027269072
Loading

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027269072
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027269072
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027269072
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error