Contenu du sommaire : I. Articles

In order to account for the correlation between the referential interpretation of the indefinite subject and the nature of the predicate, Carlson (1978) established a distinction between stage-level and individual-level predicates. Kratzer (1995) argues that this distinction stems from a difference in argument structure. According to Kratzer, stage-level predicates have an extra argument position for spatiotemporal location, whereas individual arguments lack such a position. The present study claims that time and space do not always function symmetrically and that their role can be defined more precisely if we distinguish between two types of sentences containing a stage-level predicate: those that state the existence of a referential entity and those that state the existence of an event. The advantage of this analysis is that it allows us to explain three differences between these two types of episodic sentences : (i) locative PPs, although not arguments, are sometimes obligatory in episodic sentences of the first type, whereas neither locative nor temporal expressions have an obligatory status in the episodic sentences of the second type ; (ii) the two types of episodic sentences have different aspectual properties ; (iii) the notion of existential closure is less relevant in the case of the first type of episodic sentences.

This paper focuses on the contrast between the following pairs of sentences ([a]-[b]) and ([b]-[c]):[a] Il y a des cygnes noirs. (“There are black swans.”)[b] Il y a des cygnes sur le lac. (“There are swans on the lake.”)[c] Il y a des cygnes qui sont sur le lac. (“There are swans who are on the lake.”) Relying on the literature on existence and localization, I propose to account for the interpretative differences between these sentences on the basis of a unitary analysis of their logical structure. My hypothesis is that objects introduced into the discourse by sentences like [a]-[c] exist by virtue of being located in a set, and that spatial localization plays only a secondary role, even in the case of [b]. If the “initial” set contains objects of the same kind as the object whose existence is being asserted (les cygnes ‘the swans' on a generic [a] or specific [c] reading), we have a strong, partitive interpretation. If it contains a collection of objects of different kinds which share the property of being in the same place – i.e., which stand in the same relationship to a certain object (le lac ‘the lake' in [b]) – we have a weak, existential interpretation.

This paper aims to account for the difference between the silent generic quantifier and explicit quantifiers, e.g. quantificational adverbials. The analysis shows that the generic quantifier is intrinsically modal and the generic modality takes different forms for plural definites and singular indefinites. As to the adverbial quantification, it is intrinsically existential. Another issue examined is the relationship between thetic and categorical judgements and the type of generic modality. Our proposal is that the distinction between thetic and categorical judgements, which is normally applied to existential sentences, is also applicable to generic sentences with a singular indefinite subject. The analysis tends to show that the generic modality takes different forms according to whether the sentence is structured as categorical or thetic.

De N'phrases are either a constituent of a fully fledged phrase ([Deg de N']) or syntactically autonomous but deficient and distributionally constrained. We offer a unified analysis of de N'phrases, where de is taken to be a “weak head”, which inherits the part of speech of its complement N', and requires a specifier. Either the specifier combines locally with de N', or it is extracted. In the latter case, the specifier is the bottom of a long distance dependency stopped by a filler (combien, plus) or by a lexical item (degree-quantity adverb, negative verb). Semantically, de is associated with a relation binding the individual variable introduced by the N, while also introducing a quantity variable. The quantity variable is itself bound by the local specifier relation or by an appropriate relation associated with the syntactic binder of the long distance dependency. This accounts for the correlation between the syntactic and the semantic deficiencies of autonomous de N', and for the restriction of semantic binders to quantity expressions.

This study looks into an indefinite determinative structure in French, Det-Nproper-de-Ncommon (e.g. un Everest de malheurs, “an Everest of hardships”), a quite remarkable metaphorical application of proper names. Using several tests, I show that the Det-Npr-de-Nc sequence is to be classified as a nominal determiner, more specifically a metaphorical one. This finding prompts a reconsideration of the metaphorical dimension of several nominal determiners and a re-examination of the relationships between quantification and partition on the one hand, qualification and metaphor on the other. In particular, I re-evaluate determiners built on nouns for shapes or small quantities. The originality of the initial data suggests a classification for nominal determiners based on common nouns that are not specifically quantifiers and allows me to better locate the genuinely metaphorical and antonomastic determiners within this group.

In this paper, we bring to light the existence of a new determiner, viz. dans les + numeral, whose formal properties allow us to define it as a “complex determiner” which falls into the category of indefinites in the broad sense (dans les + numeral then is similar to presque and quelque). More precisely, it is part of the category of cardinals, which are to be classified as indefinites in the narrow sense (TQG), and of that of cardinal quantifiers (DRT). Semantically, dans les + numeral, just like presque and quelque, can denote a “small quantity”. Indeed, Cette opération vous coûtera dans les 500 € (“This operation will cost you about € 500”) can be correctly paraphrased as Cette opération vous coûtera (presque / quelque) 500 € (“This operation will cost you (almost / some) € 500”). More specifically, however, it performs “non extensive quantification” (Wilmet 2003) : dans les + numeral simply limits the variation in “extensity” (ibid.), – set at a low level (in which case it is a synonym of plus ou moins (“more or less”)), – of the reference given by the numeral, something that is revealed not only by the properties of this determiner but also by the co-text and the discursive point of view.

This article accounts for the changes undergone by the form certain between the 16th and the 20th century. It is shown in particular that while the plural form completed its categorial transformations in the 16th century, the singular form only began its own evolution at that time. Moreover, whereas the contexts of use of certainsg were gradually reduced to the expression of intensity, the uses of certainpl, and accordingly its semantic values, underwent extension. The originality of this evolution is twofold. First, in contrast to many other indefinites which started off as determiners and pronouns, certain(s), initially an adjective, specialised as a determiner without giving up its adjectival potential, and eventually acquired pronominal uses (first partitive, then absolute). Second, this evolution starts at the point where that of many other indefinites ends: namely with the expression of specificity.

This paper addresses the differences between un N (“an N”), un certain N (“a certain N”) and un N bien précis (“a particular/a certain N”). One of the objectives pursued is to explain why un N bien précis and un certain N are unacceptable in averbal sentences. First, it is shown that un certain N differs from un N in its specific reading by three properties: (i) un certain N indicates that the referent has been identified twice independently (Jayez & Tovena, 2005), (ii) it indicates that the speaker does not know the referent well, but knows that somebody else knows it better, and (iii) un certain N is B suggests that the fact that the referent has some distinguishing properties explains the fact that it satisfies the property B. After that, we show that, contrary to un (certain) N, un N bien précis presupposes a contextual set of N (of cardinality ≥2), and suggests that the referent is selected to satisfy the property B among this set of N (hence the name selective specific indefinite).

This paper proposes a semantic analysis of the French free-choice indefinite n'importe qui. The semantics of the indefinite is organised as a ternary structure. The (1) abstract meaning underlies all uses of the item and acts as a principle of creative interpretation generation and comprehension. This principle is actualised via (2) discrete contextual features through to (3) contextual interpretations. Thus, the “existential” reading of n'importe qui is derived by a veridical reading of the arbitrary selection of a qualitatively-marked occurrence from the set of human animates. The derivation of contextual readings from the enrichment by contextual cues of an underspecified meaning has a claim to an explanatory model of the semantics of grammatical polysemous items, and is certainly relevant to model-theoretic approaches in as much as formal semantic notions are intricately linked to the contextual interpretation of items. It is not n'importe qui itself, but its contextual interpretations which may be weak or strong, and an homonymous treatment is not possible given the continuity of the quality and free-choice dimensions from one observed reading of n'importe qui to the next.

In analysing in detail the syntactic, referential and discourse properties of quelque chose (“something”) in a contemporary press corpus, we aim at two objectives: 1) to systematically link the syntactic and referential properties; 2) to reflect upon two apparent paradoxes: the frequent occurrence of the indefinite quelque chose as preverbal subject (Quelque chose se passait. Un phénomène nouveau que je n'avais jamais eu à affronter. “Something was happening. A novel phenomenon I had never had to face before”), a position usually occupied by topic elements; and the possibility for this “lexically empty” element to function as a postmodifier (On l'a nommé ministre de quelque chose. “He's been appointed Minister of something”), the function of which is generally described as reducing the extension of the head.