Lingvisticæ Investigationes - Volume 26, Issue 1, 2003

SummaryThe paper addresses the question of how the notion of fixed expression or idiom has to be defined. Usually idioms are defined as expressions which are characterized by semantic opacity, lack of lexical (paradigmatic) variation and morphosyntactic constraints. However, so-called ‘free’ (i.e. non idiomatic) expressions can be shown to bear similar lexical and morphosyntactic constraints, so that the limit between ‘fixed’ and ‘free’ expressions is much less clear-cut than one would expect. The only real difference which opposes idioms from ‘non-idioms’ is semantic opacity. This theoretical problem is illustrated in the paper by a case study of regional French expressions belonging either to Quebec French, Belgian French, Swiss French or French from France. The latter research is part of a large project (BFQS-project) which aims at the recollection and syntactic description of all French idiomatic expressions used in Europe and/or North-America.

SummaryTwo broad categories of frozen adverbial complements may be distinguished, organised around the noun propos in terms of the meaning taken on by this noun within these complements: namely, either «words expressed», «what is said», or «discourse topic», «what is being talked about». In the sense «words expressed», the noun propos is freely allowed in argument positions, and gives rise to the adverbial complement à (ce + ces) propos (‘in this/these connection(s)’), a topicalised temporal, or temporal-causal complement which is synonymous with à (ce + ces) mots ‘with these words’, and does not correspond to any postverbal complement. In the sense «discourse topic», the noun propos, which occurs as an argument only as complement of a small number of verbs (sortir, s’éloigner, revenir à son propos ‘diverge from, come back to one’s topic’), allows the construction of an adverbial complement à ce propos ‘in this connection’ which is found in postverbal position essentially with verbs of saying (where it is distinct in the modern language from the adverbial structure à propos de N ‘on the subject of N’), and in initial position in its function as topicaliser or utterance-level marker.

SummaryThe description of the language as used by children along the acquisition period leads to question about the most elementary principles which base all theory about language organization. The principal tools and concepts of the Lexicon-Grammar theory give account of the language organization inspite of the fact that they were not conceived to describe the language in acquisition. In particular the organization of the language in a set of discourses which gives the way of discovering its organization allow children to acquire the language through Reformulation. To acquire language children produce their predications as a function of previous predications. They repeat a part without any change and modify the rest of the source utterance. The invariant part and the modified part change in the course of the acquisition.

SummaryThe aim of this paper is to study possessive determiners in French when they are used with nouns that are predicates in support verb constructions. We distinguish two situations: the possessive refers either to the first or to the second argument of the predicate. We show that in these situations the possessives behave differently from possessives in other configurations, i.e. when the POSS N noun phrases are arguments. We show that the two interpretations of the possessive vary according to whether the support verb is standard or non standard. Some of those interpretations are connected to speech phenomena.

SummaryVarious types of sentential complements are known in Korean, they differ in their complementizer. We considered those with the complementizer ko (P-ko). Due to their grammatical properties, they do not have the status of noun phrase (NP), and they have particular properties: question in mwôlako (what) or in ôt’ôhke (how) and pronominalization with kîlôhke (this way). Thus, P-ko sentential complements show a mixture of nominal and adverbial features, though they often alternate with NP sentential complements in position of direct object. P-ko sentential complements do not share these properties with other similar sequences which must be classified as adverbial clauses.

SummaryAmong the least integrated adverbials, one can find, at the front of the clauses, detached adverbials which delimit frames: these frames gather the following information in sets semantically homogeneous relating to a criterion specified by these adverbials (M. Charolles: 1997). These criteria are extremely various: they can be spatial criteria («Aux Etats-Unis, ...»), temporal criteria («Durant l’année 1989, ...»), criteria of activity («En biologie, ...»), etc. This paper explores only one set of these frames: the frames of activity (which we will call “praxeological frames”). In addition, among the adverbials which can introduce frames of activity, we will only examine the prepositional phrases detached at the front of the clauses, introduced by the preposition “en” immediately followed by a noun (“En biologie”, “En biologie cellulaire”, ...). In particular, we will try to determine the features of the nouns which can appear just after the preposition “en” in this type of frame of activity.

SummaryThis article deals with the distribution of nominal inversion in non-interrogative main clauses and embedded adverbial clauses in French. As for main clauses, it is established that nominal inversion occurs when the clause contains a stage topic, i.e. a spatio-temporal location, whether overt (indicated by an adverb or PP) or covert (indicated by a spatio-temporal link with the preceding context). Then, it is shown that nominal inversion is also allowed in main clauses when the subject is a restrictive focus, because of the presence of a restrictive focus particle such as ne...que or seul, or because of the reference of the subject being exhaustively specified. It is then shown that both principles also explain the occurrence of nominal inversion in embedded adverbial clauses: in temporal clauses, nominal inversion is licensed without the presence of an additional factor, whereas, in causal and concessive clauses, nominal inversion is only allowed if the clause contains a stage topic or an indication of the focal interpretation of the subject. Finally, it is shown that the same explanation also acccounts for nominal inversion in comparative clauses and in main clauses preceded by the comparative adverb of manner ainsi.

SummaryThe issue of what is usually, but also misleadingly called the count–mass distinction, i.e. the distinction between nouns that can be counted (e.g. a car, two cars, many cars) and nouns that cannot (e.g. *a sand, *two sands, *many sands, sand, much sand), has been addressed and accounted for in different ways. This paper gives a critical survey of four main theoretical views on the distinction and points out that each of them is problematic in some way. It is argued that that the count–mass distinction should not be reduced to an exclusively grammatical, ontological, semantic, or contextual issue. A proper characterisation of the distinction can only be given if its multidimensional character is fully acknowledged and if parameters such as basic count- or masshood, degree of lexicalisation, conceptualisation, and (non-)arbitrariness are taken into account.