Contenu du sommaire : Les discours intérieurs au lexique, sous la direction de Amr Helmy Ibrahim

According to Anscombre and Ducrot, words can be described by means of argumentative discourses. In fact, there are, I believe, two kinds of relations between words and argumentative discourses. This paper aims at defining them. It aims at distinguishing the relation of indulgent and il est indulgent donc il est aimé from the relation of indulgent and elle avait commis une faute pourtant il ne l'a pas punie. Key words: Argumentation, Lexicon, Paradox, Grading, Negation, Semantic Block.

The meaning of words is studied within the framework of Carel's theory of « blocs sémantiques ». Each word is defined by a set of argumentative discourses, containing DONC {therefore) or POURTANT {however). Thus, neither things, nor ideas, are involved in lexical description, and criteria can be established to choose between the various definitions that each studied word seems to have. Key words: Argumentation, Lexicon, Paradox, Grading, Negation, Semantic Block

This paper describes the discourse function of two additive connectives in Spanish: encima [moreover] and además [furthermore]. The study aims to demonstrate that the difference in signification between these two additive connectives can be explained appealing to normative and transgressive argumentations, following the notions defined by the Theory of Argumentation in Language and, more specifically, by the Theory of Semantic Blocks. Thus, we can explain that when using además we have to interpret the first of the connected segments as evoking normative argumentations with therefore [fr.: done] and the occurrence of encima in an enunciation as imposing a transgressive interpretation with nevertheless [fr.: pourtant]. Key words: Connectives, Argumentation, Semantic Block, Normative,

The aim of this article is to develop the claim made in earlier papers that the standard form (±P, ±Q) of the topoï at work in the Theory of Argumentation in Language are in fact contrary to the basic claims this theory relies on. After examining several objections, an alternative theory will then be suggested, namely the Theory of Stereotypes, based on ideas adapted from Putnam, Kripke, and others. This theory, apart from evading the above mentioned objections, is consistent with the basic hypothesis of the Theory of Argumentation in Language, and moreover, provides a more satisfactory explanation for a wide range of facts. Key words: Argumentation, Stereotypes.

This paper, developed within the frame of dynamic semantics combined with the precisification principle, proposes a new distinction between polysemy and vagueness. According to this distinction, a polysemous word is underspecified in relation to a set of lexicalized precisifications, whereas a vague word is underspecified in relation to a set of precisifications which are not lexicalized. It is also proposed that, notwithstanding the independence of denotative and argumentative levels, neither of these levels can be bypassed in the semantic representation. Key words: Dynamic semantics, Precisification, Underspecified, Denotative level.

To make sense is to set up, through the words and their grammar, the shapes that have, just by being shaped as they are, alike DNA coding for polypeptidic chains, the power to give instructions that code, in an abridged version, for very redundant definitions. This paper shows how and why the general framework of defining matrixes allows to deal with these instructions and, namely, with the aim of accounting for the chains in discourse, to integrate into the analysis of a strictly grammatical and derivational lexical data, that of the semantics of internal arguments. Key words: Internal arguments, Matrixes, Definition, Lexicon, Grammar, Chains, Redundancy.