Contenu du sommaire : Types de noms et critères définitoires

The mass / count opposition is usually studied at the level of “basic” or “subordinate” nouns. We propose to deal with it at a higher level, viz. the level of “superordinate” nouns. We successively examine superordinate nouns that subsume intrinsically count basic nouns and superordinate nouns that dominate intrinsically mass basic nouns. Our analysis sheds light on some aspects of the mass / count opposition that so far have remained ambiguous, and it confirms the importance of the notion of occurrence to understand how that opposition works. Moreover, our analysis brings new elements to the fore both with respect to the semantics of the nouns at the top of nominal hierarchies and to the mass / count distinction itself.

So-called atypical or non-standard nouns such as quantité, fois, espace, odeur, couleur, action, etc. cannot be easily defined. As general nouns, they are endowed with a rather broad and abstract meaning. They are sometimes dealt with in terms of under-specification and / or under-determination. This paper tackles nonetheless the semantic structure of one of these atypical nouns, viz. chose. In describing its referential category, some of its stable properties appear, so that we can propose, in the final section of this paper, an overview of some of its semantic characteristics, like [+/- count], [+/- concrete] and having a [form].

The aim of this paper is to identify and characterize the possibility for a noun to receive both a taxonomic meaning such as in X is a Y / X is a subtype of Y and an approximate one like X looks like a Y, without being a subtype of Y in order to find new parameters that could help us under­stand nominal classifications on the basis of fuzzy vs. well-established categories. Within this perspective, the present article deals with three types of nouns : concrete count, concrete mass and color nouns.

This article addresses one of the criteria provided by Berlin & Kay (1969) when they distinguish between what they call basic and non basic colour terms. They suggest that these terms – which bear the property of denoting abstractly a chromatic span – present an identical morphological distribution. They take the example, in English, of the contrast between the terms allowing for a derivation of approximation, as grey – greyish, and those who block it, as chartreuse – *chartreuseish. Applying this criterion to French, following Bloemen et Tasmowski (1983), together with observing verbal derivation, we discuss its relevance and limits. We offer tentative conclusions about the notion of basic colour terms itself, suggesting hybrid terms which may share properties of both basic and non-basic colour terms, such as orange which does not easily allow for ?orangeâtre and roux and olive which on the contrary allow roussâtre and olivâtre. Our approach is a pragmatic one, suggesting that these facts are not essentially grounded in the arbitrariness of language but rather in cognition.

In this paper, we focus on the definitions of nouns of noises and colors. On the one hand, a standard noun like marguerite (daisy) has a “descriptive” definition. Colors and noises, on the other hand, have a “circular” definition : that is, their definitions do not describe the color or the noise at stake, but rather the conditions in which they can be experienced. So, the knowledge of the former is attained “by description”, while the knowledge of the latter is attained by “acquaintance”. The circularity of the definition of nouns of colors and noises can be contrasted with the circularity of the definition of deictic expressions. The difference is that the former presuppose the sharing of a whole form of life, while the latter presuppose the sharing of a contingent speech situation.

This article first recalls the ontological characteristics of entities termed “ideal” by Husserl, i.e. bearing “spiritual content” as opposed to physical entities and abstractions (events in a broad sense, properties, states, emotions ...). It also comments on a distinction also made by Husserl between “free” and “bound” idealities. It then presents the characteristics of idealities related to visual arts (a painting, a statue, a watercolor) as opposed to literary idealities (a novel, an epic) and musical idealities (a sonata, a song). The third part, the more developed one, is devoted to the analysis of the linguistic properties that single out, among the ideality nouns (Noms d'idéalités) in general and more specifically the Noms d'idéalités, esthetic ideality nouns, those denoting objects created by sculptors, painters or architects.