Contenu du sommaire : L'adjectif sans qualité(s) sous la direction de Catherine Schnedecker

Is the adjective personnel an anaphora or a relational predicate? We investigate the syntactic and semantic properties of the adjective personnel. Strange as they are, we intend to show that this adjective belongs to a certain class named here "prédicats de relation", these relations may be temporal, spatial or logic; the specific meanings of the adjective personnel and of the noun person are systematically described and compared. Even when an adjective is constructed absolutely, it takes what we define a subjective, "qualificative" meaning which we suppose being derived of the "relative" one. Therefore, it may be concluded that traditional dichotomy (qualificative and relational adjectives) is irrelevant.

The particular case of simple This article looks for the first time at the behaviour of the adjective simple. This adjective has ordinary uses as a qualifier, an aspect that will receive little attention here. The analysis will focus instead on the uses of simple as a preceding attributive adjective: une simple allusion, un simple soldat. A contextual study makes it possible to demonstrate the argumentative role played by this adjective. This role, which is sometime close to that of the adjective seul, is clearly restrictive and contrasts with that of pur (un simple divertissement vs un pur divertissement). In addition, the insertion of simple between a determinant and a noun is related to different methods speakers use to make an enonciative issue of the denominative term they choose in order to refer to a given speech object. On these grounds, it seems legitimate to include simple among the body of items known as "enclosures". Until now, only the adjectives vrai and véritable were included under this heading. Their behaviour is however very close in this respect to that of simple, but also to that of pur and, to a lesser degree, to that of plein and franc. This leads to a much broader view about a body of adjectives used in a non-qualifier capacity than earlier studies had attempted to gather together.

Rethinking "hedges": argumentative and enonciative function of the French adjectives vrai & véritable This paper aims at bringing out the function of the french adjectives vrai/véritable used before the noun, through an examination of the role they play as hedges. Contrary to the traditional analysis highlighting a semantic functioning, we argue that these adjectives confirm - in order to face up to a contradiction, or to anticipate it - the truth (the relevance) of the enunciation.

Interpreting pareil or how a relational adjective becomes an anaphoric device Pareil is a relational adjective, which expresses a relation of identity between two or more entities. Unlike même and différent, it does not give rise to referentially dependent interpretations. Nevertheless the arguments of the relation can be expressed in various ways, which allows us to distinguish three different uses of pareil: (i) pareil used with an overt item of comparison, taking the form of a PP introduced by the preposition à; (ii) an anaphorical use of pareil, in which one of the arguments of the relation is expressed in the preceding context, and finally (iii) an internal or reciprocal use of pareil, in which the different arguments are expressed by the plural NP pareil is predicated of. The aim of this contribution is to study the factors that bring about the latter two interpretations. It is shown that the anaphorical reading is the most frequent one and that it is the only one possible whenever pareil is used attributively preceding the noun. In these uses, pareil is very close to tel: both adjectives establish what could be called a generic anaphora. As for the reciprocal interpretation, it is made possible by the presence of a quantifier, which focalises the part structure of the referent of the NP. This quantifying element can be a determiner, a floating quantifier, an adverbial or even a durative copular verb such as rester. interpretations. It is shown that the anaphorical reading is the most frequent one and that it is the only one possible whenever pareil is used attributively preceding the noun. In these uses, pareil is very close to tel: both adjectives establish what could be called a generic anaphora. As for the reciprocal interpretation, it is made possible by the presence of a quantifier, which focalises the part structure of the referent of the NP. This quantifying element can be a determiner, a floating quantifier, an adverbial or even a durative copular verb such as rester.

A four non typical adjectives study: pluriel, multiple, singulier and unique This article presents a new approach concerning the current use of pluriel, multiple, singulier and unique, because this contribution discusses the main classical configurations between adjectif qualifiant and adjectif de relation. First, we show why pluriel, multiple, singulier and unique cannot be apprehended by these two configurations. Second, we caractérise properties of each terms. Third, it is argued that the meaning of these terms is the result of a dynamic interaction between, the properties of this terms, those of the noun and the elemental properties of the rest of the sentence. We show that the meaning of these terms is structured by the opposition « même »/« autre ».

Are premier, principal, primordial falling out of line adjectives? The three adjectival expressions premier, principal, primordial are generally considered as being synonymous. Yet, primordial is close to the so called "qualifiers" whereas premier & principal are not. On the other hand premier & principal present original properties such as bi-valency, "parallel" graduability, partitivity and even performativity, a fact that general studies do not account for preferring giving credence to the idea of an adjectival category. Besides, premier & principal are complementary. Actually, premier comes from a "hierarchy" in the strict sense, unlike principal. It does not only account for the constraints weighing on adjacent nouns but also for the way the relations between a whole and its parts are conceptualized. Premier involving seemingly countables entities connected by a successivity relation whereas principal is operating in a "massiver way on blurred outlined entities".

On the French "deictic" adjectives prochain and dernier or How to find one's way through time, space and texts This paper analyzes the referential functions of prochain/dernier in their temporal and spatial uses, on the basis of their syntactic properties as adjectives (among which, naturally, their position with respect to the noun). It also covers the relations between prochain and suivant with nouns denoting various kinds of material entities, which may or may not be considered as places. Prochain and dernier do not figure prominently in the littérature on adjectives, because of their non prototypical status. With respect to time, there is a general consensus assuming that they are "deictic", at least when they follow the noun (e.g. la semaine dernière/prochaine), despite the well known fact that dernier is an ordinal adjective. They contrast with (précédent /suivant) which establish reference on the basis of a given reference time (e.g. à Noël ... la semaine précédente/ suivante) rather than on the basis of speech time. Though it is often assumed that time should be analyzed as a transposition of space, the temporal behaviour of prochain and dernier turns out not to be precisely parallel to their spatial uses. Dernier no longer forms a pair with prochain (e.g. Je descends à la station prochaine /*dernière); it functions strictly as an ordinal adjective. Furthermore, suivant is in competition with prochain (e.g. Je descends à la station prochaine/à la prochaine station/à la station suivante), though the two adjectives produce clearly distinct references with respect to time (e.g. la semaine prochaine Ф la semaine suivante). Contrasting the behaviour of these adjectives with respect to time and space is important because it reveals the asymmetry between prochain and dernier, which is hidden if one only considers the temporal uses. It allows one to explain (i) how prochain and dernier come together to form a contrasting pair in their temporal uses, despite the fact that dernier is not an indexical; (ii) why suivant can provide the same referent as prochain with names of material entities, despite the fact that the meanings of the two are radically different. At the end of this journey through months and weeks, stations and times, women, pages and chapters, it will turn out that the differences between space and time are less important than might initially appear, at least if one takes into account a crucial property of temporal entities, namely their lack of salience.