Contenu du sommaire : Le groupe nominal : contraintes distributionnelles et hypothèses de descriptions, sous la direction de Anne Daladier

The possessive system of Standard Modern French. This paper offers a thorough description of the three series of possessive expressions produced in Standard Modern French: possessive determiners (e.g. mon), possessive adjectives (e.g. mien) and dative possessives (e.g. à moi). It attempts to show how the three types are interrelated, and in what respects the possessive system of Modern French differs from those of Old French and Latin. The leading assumption is that Modern French possessives are spell-outs of a functional head, labelled 'I°', which articulates finite predications.

Partitive nominal phrases and relativization It is proposed that the head of a partitive nominal phrase is a functional one, the word de, and that quantifying expressions are specifiers of QPs. It is also contended that so-called partitive complements are labelled as DPs, where N is the lexical head of the whole expression.

The role of predication in some French nominal compounds. The aim of this article is to account, in terms of 'deep predication' for syntactic and semantic properties of those of French nominal compounds N₁, N₂ that are not idioms. Such a word formation, extremely productive in Modern French, mainly provides terms that refer to subsets of things: N₁ à N₂ is a hyponym of N₁. The study is carried out within the framework of the theory of linguistic stereotypes, especially as regards genericity. The first part is devoted to an examination of the possibility/impossibility for such nominals to be built up, and shows that it crucially depends on the existence of a peculiar generic connection between N₁ and N₂. The second part is an attempt to find out the conditions under which the N₂ of a compound noun N₁ à N₂ can be anaphorized by means of le N₂, son N₂, and en respectively. Once again, such possibilities are closely related to the above mentioned generic connection, especially as regards the type of (deep) predication involved.

The aim of this paper is to give an answer to the problem raised by the analysis of the relation which holds between the two referents involved in an associative anaphor. Starting with restricted facts over the phenomenon, we try to show that two factors are involved in the mechanism of the relation: a condition of alienation and the principle of ontological congruence. These two factors explain in a novel and stimulating fashion why the utterances: ?Pierre a exposé son dernier tableau. La beauté (= la beauté du tableau) est fascinante ?Max entre. Les yeux (= les yeux de Max) sont hors de leur orbite ?Paul ouvrit la commode. Le bois (= le bois de la commode) était polychrome are deviant, when the sequences: Paul lava la voiture, mais oublia le capot (= le capot de la voiture) Max entre, les yeux brillants are well formed. Georges Kleiber: Anaphore associative et relation partie-tout: condition d'aliénation et principe de congruence ontologique The aim of this paper is to give an answer to the problem raised by the analysis of the relation which holds between the two referents involved in an associative anaphor. Starting with restricted facts over the phenomenon, we try to show that two factors are involved in the mechanism of the relation: a condition of alienation and the principle of ontological congruence. These two factors explain in a novel and stimulating fashion why the utterances: ?Pierre a exposé son dernier tableau. La beauté (= la beauté du tableau) est fascinante ?Max entre. Les yeux (= les yeux de Max) sont hors de leur orbite ?Paul ouvrit la commode. Le bois (= le bois de la commode) était polychrome are deviant, when the sequences: Paul lava la voiture, mais oublia le capot (= le capot de la voiture) Max entre, les yeux brillants are well formed.

The original adverbial caracter of the indo-european genitive case, extractions, possessive pronouns, anaphoric le and grammaticalized interpretations in French nominal The use of various morphological pronouns inside distributional oppositions such as: constraints on the possessivation of de N, constraints on Qu- extraction in contexts where the clitic en is allowed, constraints on anaphoric le in sentences where an explicit anaphoric genitive son is allowed, extends concrete and abstract values of source and membership of the indo european genitive case while discriminating very sharply the new values. Extraction properties also renew in some sense the adverbial original caracter of the genitive case. These extensions and différenciations of grammaticalized values take place inside two syntactic uses of de. De can occur as a discontinuous morpheme of a noun operator where it is grammaticalized inside the argumentai relationship of this noun with its arguments. De can also occur as a lexical operator, expressing various concrete and abstract possessive values and governing arguments, having or not argumentai structures.